Why Arabs Hate the US

[baldar]

Statements have been made that seemed to me the height of naivete. It has been stated that if we did some good the Arabs would not necessarily hate the US. This shows, in my opinion a great lack of historical understanding.

Almost two years ago on "another" site I put together number of references and posed the question, why do the Arabs hate us. This was before the invasion of Iraq, and yet most what I wrote was still relevant. I am posting it here so that there can be comments regarding the issue.

Some of the new questions might be:

1-How has the war changed the analysis?

2-How does it tie to some of the other analyists or analysis we have discussed?

3-What does it say to the future and importance of Iraq in the context of what was written?

4-Finally, after two years, is the majority of the analysis still accurate or wrong from the beginning? If so, where and how?

Analysis:

If we do good the Arabs will like us?




I posted this quite some time ago.


Interesting question, and I can already tell most of you are getting ready to hit that reply button to trot out the normal answers (even answers I normally give), you know, fanatacism, or the evil empire syndrome of the US, both sides have their talking heads, blurbs that generally are spewed back at us on a nightly basis in our thirty minute news flash of what is happening in the world. Lately I have been doing some reading. Here are some thoughts to add to those 30 second flashes of news.
For a number of years the US has been villified for several reasons, support of Israel and support for unpopular Arab regimes run by despots. This, many assume came to a boil on 9-11. Now while we know that anti Americanism is fairly widespread it really doesn't tell us why and its seems a bit misleading. I find it difficult to reconcile Arab and Muslim hostility towards the US with US policy. US policy has actually been very very pro-Arab and pro-Muslim so I believe that this anti Americanism is actually a product of self interested manipulation by key groups inside of Arab society. I believe it is important to identify such an action for the following reason:

If Arab anti Americanism is grounded in the domestic issues of Arab society and not the "evil" deeds of the US, then no amount of public relations or any real change in US policy will change that perception. As a matter of fact, changing US policy to meet this manipulation within Arab society will only make it worse. US attempts at meeting the internally designated evils of America will be seen as an "appeasement" of a weaker nation and encourage radicalism to go even farther.

Seems to me that for the past decade or two anti US sentiment has always been the "last resort" of despotic political regimes whose failed systems have tried to prop up their own standing and diverted attention away from their domestic failures. By assigning faults or shortcomings of their own systems on the US many Arab leaders hope to distract their people from the real problems, so instead of pushing for greater privatization, equality of women, democracy, a rule of law society, freedom of speech, due process, (note how lacking all of these items are in the Arab world), it is better to use the US as a whipping boy (think Schroeder doing this over several decades to win elections).

What is so interesting about this tact is how it flies in the face of reality if one were to look at the factual history of US policy. The US has always favored a policy in its own interests, but those interests have also generally coincided with those of Arab leaders and their people.

Kuwait

The US saved Kuwait from annexation by Iraq's secular dictator in 1991, mainly to preserve cheap oil to be sure, but it was still in effect a pro-Kuwaiti, pro-Muslim and pro-Arab. It would have been easy for the US to sieze Kuwaitis fields and demand lower prices or even political concessions. Instead we, well, we just left while we sought the highest level of political support for our actions among Arabs and Muslims.

Conflicts in general

When the US has become involved in a regional dispute (often at the pleadings of Europe) it is usually during fights between moderates and secular Arab forces or radical Islamist groups that even most Muslims consider too far in one direction. The US has generally backed groups with a strong claim to Arab or Islamic legitimacy. You can see this going all the way back to the 1950's. Look at Egypt, Syria and Iraq, while dictatorships friendly to Moscow they menaced Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Even during the 1950's the US wanted good relationships with Nassar and we even prevented his overthrow by the UK, France and Israel in the 1956 Suez War. The US continued to woo Egypt, we accepted Syria's hegemony over Lebanon and really during that period the US did little to punish state sponsored terrorism. The US even acted as a protector of Islam during that time since we viewed traditional Islam as a counter to secular communism which had, at the time aligned itself with radical Arab nationalism.

Still we are the bad guys.

During the Cold War it became popular for radicals to portray moderates as western puppets to establish their own legitimacy and even accused US backed moderate governments of being anti democratic or ignoring human rights while ignoring the actions of regimes like Libya, Syria and revolutionary Iran which had far worse records. And I believe that is part of the impossible dilemma for the US. When we help friendly governments we are accused of undermining revolutionary movements in Islam, but when we pressure those Arab governments into improving their actions in democracy or human rights (which we also do) we are accused of being imperialists (see Eddin Ibrahim on google if you don't believe me). During the 70's to the 90's whenever there has been a conflict between moderate governments and Islamic movements we did not take sides. In Iran's 79 revolution, the US wanted to Shah to stay in power but we instead restrained him from being tougher than he was. After the revolution (before the hostage crisis) Jimmy Carter attempted a conciliation with the new government, that unfortunately caused the radicals to seize the embassy with a sign that said "No moderates served here". The only time the US has ever really been involved countering an Islamic rev movement was Afghanistan.

Lets look at some other examples:

1-End of the Arab Israeli War in 1973 the US rescued Egypt by forcing Israel into a cease fire.

2-US saved Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982 and arranged safe passage to Tunisia.

3-The US was willing to support Arafat and the PLO while overlooking their history (our bad) of terrorism, anti Americanism, and alignment with the Soviet Union (you'd think we would learn after Castro).

4-Despite Palestinian backing of Iraq during the War the US sponsored a peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would have created a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem (See how Arafat has **** all that away).

5-Our support of Afghanistan against the Soviets.

6-Saudi Arabia from Iraq

7-Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia (Not Europe's finest hour for peace).

8-Muslim Pakistan against India

9-Muslim Turkey against Greece

10-Accepted Syrian control of Lebanon (a neutral action)

11-On a racial basis we supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran (and believe me the Arabs like Persians only a few notches above Jews).

12-Arab oil tankers against Persian Iran (yes also in our best interest but remember they often coincide).

13-Somalia where the US is trying through humanitarian efforts (and no compelling state interest) to help a Muslim people under warlords (I really don't see any Arabic states stepping up to the plate on this one either).

14-When US oil companies holdings were nationalized by Saudi Arabia, Lybia and others we showed an amazing amount of restraint.

15-Soviet collapse would have been a golden opportunity for a purely pragmatic movement into the Levant.

16-We have not used our overwhelming strength to directly dominate the Gulf and gulf states.

17-Since 9-11 the US has also taken great efforts to show the world (and the US) that Islam and Arabs are not US enemies.

[baldar]

So really with the exception of our support of Israel, during the last 50 year in 11 of the 12 major conflicts between Islamic countries and non Muslims, Muslims and secular enemies, or Arabs against non Arabs the us has always sided with the former.

So why the kick in the huevos?

The real record is disregarded but why?

1-Well first I think while we fail to understand the region fully, Arabs failure to understand the US has been significantly greater. Seems the the Middle East always thinks the US wishes to conquer or wipe them out (part of the xenophobia adopted from the earlier Mongolian invasions), but also because its what they would do, if they could.

2-I believe that we also forget how tightly information is controlled in the area. Ostensibly Al Jazeera is the first Arabic news station not controlled by a state. So you can see its easy to manipulate the hoi poloi via constantly being fed false information without any real tertiary access to accept differing viewpoints.

3-Then all our actions are distorted by this tightly controlled media. The US is blamed for the suffering of Muslims that it protected in Kosovo and Bosia. Humanitarian aid in Somalia is shown as an imperialistic anti Muslim move defeated by heroic resistance fighter (ie see warlords that brought starvation to the country in the first place).

4-The more dangerous threats that the US protects them from is downplayed. Saddam Hussein looted Kuwait, vanalized it, threatened invasion, tortured and repressed his own people, chemical weapons guy, fired (wildly inaccurate) missiles against population centers, wants a nuclear weapon (so he can say "whos your daddy"). And with all that, Arab leaders in the Middle East tell their people the US is partially responsible for his actions.

5-There is that constant need for Arabs to reduce all US actions down to one single stupid item. US supports Israel, so all the US does is wrong, and all that anti American Arab groups do is right. Regardless of the ambivalence the US has in regard to Israel.

Note without number 5, you would still have four other key elements that make US policy almost impossible and untenable in the Arab world. Also note that this is generally domestically produced (relative to the Arab world) and usually outside US influence.

For radical Islamic groups anti Americanism has been an easy way to aspire to legitimacy and muster support. Generally these though have been rebuffed in establishing a theocratic states (exception being Iran), so they foster a type of xenophobia among different Muslim groups who see Islam differently and also against heathens in general who they claim seek to destroy Muslims.

Then again anti Americanism is just as useful for oppressive regimes. Instead of responding to demands for democracy, living standards, human rights, less corruption less incompetence, the leaders prefer to blame the US (see Palestinians for a perfect example of this). The governments do the "national unity or shut up routine" (and yes we do it to in times of crisis, but not for decades at a time and it almost never props up a presidency for very long). Of course by taking the anti US route, these groups also make sure their opponents don't use the same tactic. So while Saudi Arabia and Egypt receive weapons and protection from the US they have also promoted the ever popular US whipping boy scenario through various policies and through state controlled media (which is very anti American). Hey if America can be blamed for Iraqi deaths because of sanctions, who is going to remember the siezure of Kuwait? Iran uses the tactic to get the US out of the Gulf and to keep focus away from their two biggest weaknesses. 1-Iranians are not Arabs 2-Iranians are generally Shia and not Sunni. Domestic reformers are called US puppets and hence delegitimize them. Syria uses anti US sentiment to distract the people away from reforms that Assad promised (but quickly abandoned).

For the Palestinians its great cover for their own rejection of peace and compromise and a method of mobilizing the groups when necessary. It also gives the leaders themselves cover for rejecting US policies they disagree with claiming their hands are tied because of the passion of the people (course that never stops tough action when the leaders feel their own self interest is at stake).

Of course then there are the Arab anti American intellectuals and journalists who feel the need to vent their anger at government approved targets instead of risking personal life and limb by criticizing their own governments for its failures. Yes we are the whipping boy.

Now this is not to dismiss all anger towards the US. But lets be accurate here. The reactive violence of the middle east for their grievences is completely disproportionate. Arabs and Muslims have suffered less from US policy than most other groups. But none of these other groups comes anywhere near the level of violence and hatred the Middle East regularlly spews out. Arab states don't really have a basis for complaints. They have grown rich off the US economy and US influence over Arabic economy is limited at best, so they can't legitimitely argue that Arabs are poor based on US policies. We certainly don't make or break nations. Since the Pro-shah coup in 1953 there is not a single US covert action to change a Middle eastern regime. Only in Iraq has the US an attempt for an overthrow, and so far we are really doing a great job there aren't we? Fact is most other countries in the world, including Europe have a better case at being angry towards the US than the middle east, but you won't find Europeans caling for terrorist attack from their minarets.

Really it comes down to using the US to disparage good ideas that arise from the US. In essence anti Americanism is really a negative response to gobalization and westernization.

Finally there is an established false dichotomy. To portray the US as an enemy it must be made to be the bully. To ecourage challenging the US it must also be portrayed as weak. Radical Islamic groups and states are frustrated because the US, to a certain extent is feared and some even see alliance with us as a desirable outcome. If America is powerful why fight it and the people it protects? So radicals must somhow show the US to be both horrible and helpless, and that it will not do anything if it is attacked.

So if the US does little to respond to attacks anti Americanism is encouraged by the belief it is meek. Look at the key themes in Osama Bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Kussein and others, they do not say attack the strong America, but attack America because it is weak. Hafez Assad once said "It is important to gain respect, rather than sympathy." Bin Laden agrees once commenting that people always back the strongest. The Iraqi minister himself also commented that Western weakness in confroning Hitler encouraged Nazi aggression. Saddam has consistently interpeted US conciliation as proof that the US is weak, after all, if it were not so, why negotiate? (from Saddam's point of view). In a speech in Feb of 1990 Saddam has said the Arab world has three options.

1-Arabs can give up
2-They can wait until Europe is stronger and play Europe off the US
3-Unite behind a strong Arab leader that can defeat the US.

Guess which option is still foremost in his mind?

He went on to say that the US has shown "signs of fatigue, frustration and hesitation" in Vietnam and Iran and had quickly run away from Lebanon (see Lebanese Barracks bombing and its aftermath) when marines are killed. Experience has shown that if Iraq acted boldly the US would do nothing, he concluded. He still believes that to this day otherwise why pull back before reaching Baghdad?

So what should the US do in the face of this conundrum? With the benefits of developing anti Americanism on a domestic basis, how do we convince Arabic leaders not to do this? Even if the US withdrew support for Israel, pulled back from Iraq, Arab newspapers will not sing the praises of the US. It will however encourage radicals to even greater heights.

I think the first thing the US needs to do is understand that no public relations efforts, mea culpas, appeasement or policy shifts will do anything to change anti Americanism. The systems in place will simply adapt and change the content but not the tone of anti Americanism, so the sytems that produce this sentiment must themselves be rooted out. This includes Saudi support for the Arabic schools that forment these hate policies (masras I believe they are called). And more importantly the US should be steadfast in its support of its own interests and the interests of its allies which includes a support of Israel and developing stronger ties with moderate Arab states which should be "encouraged" to do more publicly to justify US support.

But hey, thats just me.

A book that brought this to the forefront for me was "Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East", I highly recommend it and while it is not the easiest read it goes into a great deal more insight and analysis than is offered here.

End of Analysis

[Sgt Schultz]

I recommend reading Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present by Michael B. Oren.

[baldar]

Sounds good, I will give it a read.

[baldar]

So what do you think of the post itself?

[Castle]

Baldar,
I believe I remember you from another political watering hole some years ago. Your attention to detail and refreshing common sense logic jogged my memory more so than your name. If I am in error then allow me to compliment you by comparing you to an intellect I admired.

Please accept one more item of praise.
"I think the first thing the US needs to do is understand that no public relations efforts, mea culpas, appeasement or policy shifts will do anything to change anti Americanism. The systems in place will simply adapt and change the content but not the tone of anti Americanism"

I was particularly drawn to this as it makes a point that all too often appears to exist only in my mind. Thank you for dispelling that myth.
It is amazing to me that so few can grasp this statement. Some simply choose to ignore it because it shakes the very foundation of their political affiliation. Others won't consider it because their eternal optimism precludes them from accepting the possibility that many will hate for hates sake regardless of what we do to sweeten the pot.

I look forward to more of your wisdom.

-Castle

[Afghan]

Why Arabs hate the US.
Because they hate everyone.

[OPGhostdog]

Because they hate everyone.

Lets not get the Arab ethic group as a whole confused with
Islam and Muslims...All Arabs isn't Muslims. You know the
internet is a tricky tool, due to the fact that I can call myself
Nubian, and be a citizen here in the Western world.

To make a open statement They hate Everyone means that
you know this as a fact. So is there a problem between the
Russians and the Arabic world?

[KingBall]

Lets not get the Arab ethic group as a whole confused with
Islam and Muslims...All Arabs isn't Muslims. You know the
internet is a tricky tool, due to the fact that I can call myself
Nubian, and be a citizen here in the Western world.

To make a open statement They hate Everyone means that
you know this as a fact. So is there a problem between the
Russians and the Arabic world?

You sound uneducated.:cool:

[baldar]

I agree with political ghostdog, many adherents of Islam are not anti American, in fact I know a few who embrace the American dream, unfortunately they don't make near the noise that the extremists do. At the same time I often urge them to be more vocal in their protests against extremists.

Part of the problem is that the holiest islamic sites are also controlled by the extremes of Islamic culture. This gives a great deal of leeway to small groups that are intolerant in that religion.

Thanks for the compliment Castle. It is always at the back of my mind too.

[OPGhostdog]

You sound uneducated.:cool:

So for even wasting your time typing something stupid to
something that you don't understand is ignorant.

[Sgt Schultz]

So what do you think of the post itself?

Very good read. You are obviously versed in the history of the middle east and I look forward to reading your posts.

[drippinhun]

A good neighbor of mine back in the mid 1970s was a gentleman from Iraq. I remember him telling me in one of our many lengthy conversations how when he was a teenager in the 1940s and an US diplomatic vehicle would drive by with the US flags fluttering off the antennas, his friends and him would get goosebumps at the sight. "Your country represented freedom and justice."

By the mid 1970s it was apperent that our role as an impartial peace broker in the Israel/Palestine situation was dishonest and we were going to support Israel, right or wrong. It was at that point the Arab world felt betrayal.

While in the Western cultures the attributes that we use to hold highest - honesty and decency; in the Arab culture they believe justice is the most important. You can understand why many distrust us and now with our overt actions, generations to come will be skeptacle of any of our intentions.

[9sublime]

Before Israel, (yes, this isn't statistically true, but I think we all know it) almost all the arabs loved America. After 9/11, the rise of radicalism made less arabs sympathise with America. After Afghanistan, more Muslims sympathised with America. After Iraq/Now, many Muslims hate America.

But its still a very small portion of them that commit attacks.

Can't you see, you have bought it upon yourselfs. Saying the terrorists only hate you because you are a rich and free country doesn't cut it. The jealousy is one small catalyst factor, but its more what you and your allies have inflicted on these people.

I do not support terrorist attacks, what they inflicted on you at 9/11 was horrific, but it hardly mounts up in terms of casulaties to what you have done elsehwere.

[OPGhostdog]

[qoute=9sublime] I do not support terrorist attacks, but it hardly
mounts up in terms of casulaties to what you have done elsehwere.

9Sub, This is exactly what I have been talking about for the longest.
I love my Country with its hateful self, but we seem to have forgot
about all the damage we have done to other countries, and that's
because we are to busy thinking about ourselves.

Then on the other hand our Government isn't thinking about the
slum Cities in this nation, due to the fact that our government
is to busy dipping and starting **** elsewhere, and isn't taking the
time to think about the tax payers here in the States.

Payback is a muther**** price to pay, and we haven't seen nothing
yet.

[HateKoolAid]

If everybody wants to equate muslims with Islamic extremists (Bin Laden) in mind than lets also discuss christianity with Eric Rudolph in mind.
Christian armies in muslim countries means turmoil.

[OPGhostdog]

If everybody wants to equate muslims with Islamic extremists (Bin Laden) in mind than lets also discuss christianity with Eric Rudolph in mind.
Christian armies in muslim countries means turmoil.


Very good suggestion HateKoolAid. Sit back now to watch the internet
version of As the Tables Turn.

[baldar]

I do not advocate in my post that all Arabs are evil, or that all Muslims are wrong. Indeed I find such an idea abhorrent. What I am finding though, and what I attemtpted to show, was that US actions, no matter how benign, no matter how beneficial to the Arab/Mulsim nations in general, will not be judged as beneficial. That too many Arabic groups, whether indoctrinated by the USSR et al during the cold war, or by the financial backing of whabbist radicals through the Saudi Madras network, will not accept anything the US does as beneficial and so any sacrifice the US makes in order to reach an accomodation will not work.

Perhaps respect for the capabilities and determination of the US should come first?

[9sublime]

What I am finding though, and what I attemtpted to show, was that US actions, no matter how benign, no matter how beneficial to the Arab/Mulsim nations in general, will not be judged as beneficial.

...

Perhaps respect for the capabilities and determination of the US should come first?

I don't regard the war on Iraq as particularly benficial. People live in more fear than under Saddam in a lot of the country, the future of the country is far more unstable, the economy has gone down the pan and local militas have had to take control where the government/army fails to do its job. The country is more rife with corruption. It doesn't look good.

Supporting Israel was not beneficial for the Arab nations at all, because they were not just going to accept intruders onto Palestinian soil.

Sure, America has done some good for the Arab world, quite a bit, but I think the warfare has marred it all.

As for respecting the capabilities and determination of the US, sometimes people who are very clever and with lots of resolve have no common sense. I do not respect them when they do something stupid.

[drippinhun]

I do not advocate in my post that all Arabs are evil, or that all Muslims are wrong. Indeed I find such an idea abhorrent. What I am finding though, and what I attemtpted to show, was that US actions, no matter how benign, no matter how beneficial to the Arab/Mulsim nations in general, will not be judged as beneficial. That too many Arabic groups, whether indoctrinated by the USSR et al during the cold war, or by the financial backing of whabbist radicals through the Saudi Madras network, will not accept anything the US does as beneficial and so any sacrifice the US makes in order to reach an accomodation will not work.

Perhaps respect for the capabilities and determination of the US should come first?

It's going to be a real long time before they can trust us again, if ever. Can you blame them?

[jb_1430]

[qoute=9sublime]

Payback is a muther**** price to pay, and we haven't seen nothing
yet.


What did we do to saudi Arabia other than build their oil industry, sell it to them for pennies on the dollar and pay cash for trillions of dollars worth of their oil? MARK

[baldar]

I don't regard the war on Iraq as particularly benficial. People live in more fear than under Saddam in a lot of the country, the future of the country is far more unstable, the economy has gone down the pan and local militas have had to take control where the government/army fails to do its job. The country is more rife with corruption. It doesn't look good.

Supporting Israel was not beneficial for the Arab nations at all, because they were not just going to accept intruders onto Palestinian soil.

Sure, America has done some good for the Arab world, quite a bit, but I think the warfare has marred it all.

As for respecting the capabilities and determination of the US, sometimes people who are very clever and with lots of resolve have no common sense. I do not respect them when they do something stupid.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. Whether the genocide of the Marsh Arabs was an acceptable thing versus other options or possibilities, such as a stable but deadly dictatorhsip. Is the economy more unstable? It is, but I would place that more squarely upon the Shia incursions from Iran and Some sunni infiltration. The vast majority of the Iraqis simply want to get along, but feel helpless before the outsiders (including the US).

By the way, supporting Israel is probably the most beneficial thing the Arab leadership ever had. Without it they would have no one upon which to blame their shortcomings. Your cow dies? its Israel's fault, the sun is too warm, its those zionist Jews. It goes on and on.

While warfare has marred the US involvement in teh Middle East, I don't thing there has ever really been a change in attitude even without the warfare.

Common sense on the other hand is something that many politicians and presidents do seem to lack. Its as if you leave at the door when you enter the oval office.

[9sublime]

By the way, supporting Israel is probably the most beneficial thing the Arab leadership ever had. Without it they would have no one upon which to blame their shortcomings. Your cow dies? its Israel's fault, the sun is too warm, its those zionist Jews. It goes on and on.



I hope your not actually being serious here. I can see how they blame zionism for a lot of things, but its certainly not benifical. If they didn't have Israel they would fight between each other or some other country in close proximity.

[baldar]

I am being partially serious here. Israel has become the scape goat for a thousand sins carried out by Arab leaders upon their people.

I have actually had a member of the House of Saud tell this to me (he is along the lines of approximately 8000 in the line to the throne, but still one of the elite).

[9sublime]

Tell you what? That he blames Israel for the weather, or that the general arab population blames Israel for everything?

The people who decided to create Israel were absoloute morons, did they ever think it would go peacefully and they would live and let live?

Give the southern states back to Mexico and see how the residents feel, that should have been the agreement when they created Israel.

[drippinhun]

Most Arabs are aware of the "sins" of their leaders and how most of the hodgepodge of leadership was forced upon them by the British and French. But if not for the volume of everyday people who have suffered or perished by Western meddlings and the support these Royal Bastards or CIA fostered Dictators have brought to their lives, their might be a modicum of trust. For now, a portion will feign going along with anything we say just to get us off of their turf. Some will not.

[drippinhun]

Tell you what? That he blames Israel for the weather, or that the general arab population blames Israel for everything?

The people who decided to create Israel were absoloute morons, did they ever think it would go peacefully and they would live and let live?

Give the southern states back to Mexico and see how the residents feel, that should have been the agreement when they created Israel.

For true justice, Israel should have been carved out of the German borders. But somehow I don't believe the West wanted a peaceful solution. There isn't a lot of money to be made for some with a stable environment.

[9sublime]

Thats not true justice, that just taking land off the innocent Germans of the area, just like the Palestinians in the area.

And its just not holy land by Germany.

[drippinhun]

Thats not true justice, that just taking land off the innocent Germans of the area, just like the Palestinians in the area.

And its just not holy land by Germany.

Germany committed the Holocaust and as reparations they should have had to give up territory to allow this Zionist dream to be fulfilled (or the entire thing should have been called off.)

As far as holy land, I'm of the Purple People Eater Sect that predates human existance and had been promised by the Universal Banana that this planet was mine. (As you can tell by my sarcasm, I don't subscribe to mythological bull and no person should have to suffer because of such childish uselessness.)

[baldar]

There was no country in what is today Israel, like so much that was lost post WWI, the Ottoman's had long since had the lands placed under British control. The Brits could do what they want, and an indication was the Balfour declaration.

The UK did not necessarily want Israel to come into existence, but remember they have faced a terrible war, paid a terribly high price and their soldiers and people were tired of fighting, including fighting the Jews who did also commit acts of terrorism. Tie that to the lobby's in Washington in which Truman was concerned about the politics and saw allowing the state of Israel as a positive politically. He simply nudged the UK until it raised its hands and went away.

Israel or rather the Palestine area was for all intents and purposes, at this point was abandoned. Israel claimed statehood, other nations sought to destroy it (specifically Arab) and they failed time and again. I think at that point, by virtue of combat against larger numbers, time and again, Israel has won its right to exist, regardless of some crazy interpretation of Mohammed's last words.

[baldar]

Most Arabs are aware of the "sins" of their leaders and how most of the hodgepodge of leadership was forced upon them by the British and French. But if not for the volume of everyday people who have suffered or perished by Western meddlings and the support these Royal Bastards or CIA fostered Dictators have brought to their lives, their might be a modicum of trust. For now, a portion will feign going along with anything we say just to get us off of their turf. Some will not.

The meddling of the west doesn't even come close to the intercine warfare and destruction foisted upon Palestinians by their own people. Again, just another excuse. Arab leaders need to finger point. Palestine would be an excellent place to live and make money. Its a beautiful land, but the Palestinian leadership refuse to make the necessary investments.

Lebanon used to be considered the Switzerland of the Middle East. Its was Israel that ripped it apart. And it isn't Israel today. Look to Syria and Hezbollah, and others. One of my best friends is Iraqi, he married a Palestinian woman who was christian. The depredations she described weren't foisted on her family by Israelis.

[vyo476]

The meddling of the west doesn't even come close to the intercine warfare and destruction foisted upon Palestinians by their own people. Again, just another excuse. Arab leaders need to finger point. Palestine would be an excellent place to live and make money. Its a beautiful land, but the Palestinian leadership refuse to make the necessary investments.

Isn't it mostly desert? Don't tell me you're going Edward Abbey on us. Oh, shudder.


Lebanon used to be considered the Switzerland of the Middle East. Its was Israel that ripped it apart. And it isn't Israel today. Look to Syria and Hezbollah, and others. One of my best friends is Iraqi, he married a Palestinian woman who was christian. The depredations she described weren't foisted on her family by Israelis.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but oddly enough it sums up the Middle East pretty well. General randomness and ****'s bad, whose to blame? Who knows!

[baldar]

Its not really mostly desert, it can be made to bloom and actually it is fertile too.

I have seen squalor of Palestine and have wondered where Arafat had put all those hundreds of millions of dollars. The infrastructure in some cases is older than the US. I just think that Palestine would have been much further along had it not been for present Arab leadership.

[OPGhostdog]

What did we do to saudi Arabia other than build their oil industry, sell it to them for pennies on the dollar and pay cash for trillions of dollars worth of their oil? MARK

How can we sell them something that they already own?
This post is kinda confusing to me, due to the fact that
you're say we are selling & paying at the sametime?

[drippinhun]

The meddling of the west doesn't even come close to the intercine warfare and destruction foisted upon Palestinians by their own people. Again, just another excuse. Arab leaders need to finger point. Palestine would be an excellent place to live and make money. Its a beautiful land, but the Palestinian leadership refuse to make the necessary investments.

Lebanon used to be considered the Switzerland of the Middle East. Its was Israel that ripped it apart. And it isn't Israel today. Look to Syria and Hezbollah, and others. One of my best friends is Iraqi, he married a Palestinian woman who was christian. The depredations she described weren't foisted on her family by Israelis.

I guess bulldozing and bombing public buildings tend to usurp the possibility of seeing any fruits of investment. There is no excuses being offered other than Israel is methodically stealing land and doing whatever it takes to try to completely break the spirits of the rightful inhabitants to persuade them to move. That includes brutal treatment. They are barbaric, plain and simple.

Lebanon was a beautiful city beginning when it was part of Syria until the French seperated it in 1926. It was the 1975-1990 Civil War that saw the country destroyed. And in large part it was due to Phalanges Libanaises elements and Israeli actions. But in spite of that, Lebanon was undergoing an economic boom and starting to reflourish when they were invaded and the country was again decimated in 2006 by ... none other than the barbarians from the south.

[9sublime]

Palestine wasn't much before Israel, agreed. But the fact is that you would lot would get all stressy if you found out Mexicans were building cities in the deserts of Arizona, simply because it is not their soil. Thats how the arabs feel. It was never going to work peacefully, but it could have been better had Israel not begun stealing land which they were not allocated.

[drippinhun]

If by not much it means there weren't condominiums and glitzy shopping malls, you are correct. But for the million or so people who lived there, it was home. And if you gave me over a hundred billion dollars (thank you U.S. suckers,) I could make almost any patch of land flourish.

[drippinhun]

On second thought, back in the 1940s, there weren't any condominiums or glitsy shopping malls down here in Florida either. I guess we were backward nobodies also.

[baldar]

How can we sell them something that they already own?
This post is kinda confusing to me, due to the fact that
you're say we are selling & paying at the sametime?

I believe the point was building up the industry, not necessarily selling them the oil.

[vyo476]

On second thought, back in the 1940s, there weren't any condominiums or glitsy shopping malls down here in Florida either. I guess we were backward nobodies also.

Damn straight. ;)

Anyway, every time I see the title of this thread on the Recent Threads board, I read it and I think to myself, "Well...wouldn't you, if you were in their position?" Certainly, not all Arabs hate us, but I can sure as hell see the "why" of those that do.

[baldar]

I guess bulldozing and bombing public buildings tend to usurp the possibility of seeing any fruits of investment. There is no excuses being offered other than Israel is methodically stealing land and doing whatever it takes to try to completely break the spirits of the rightful inhabitants to persuade them to move. That includes brutal treatment. They are barbaric, plain and simple.

Lebanon was a beautiful city beginning when it was part of Syria until the French seperated it in 1926. It was the 1975-1990 Civil War that saw the country destroyed. And in large part it was due to Phalanges Libanaises elements and Israeli actions. But in spite of that, Lebanon was undergoing an economic boom and starting to reflourish when they were invaded and the country was again decimated in 2006 by ... none other than the barbarians from the south.

Bulldozing public buildings for punative terrorist action, you seem to be skipping that part. And yes, Israel has been stealing land too. Of course the Palestinians have given Israel every excuse to do just that. Everytime you blow up a kiosk or a school bus, the local government isn't going to feel bad about bulldozing the family home, or stealing their land. You seem to be skipping the brutality on one side while magnifying it on the other. And while Israelis aren't killing each other, I must say the Palestinians are doing far worse and killing more Palestinians than the Israelis are doing.

Regarding Lebanon:
You make a giant leap from 1926 to 1970's. It was peaceful coexistance for much of that time until Syria (which did not exist as a country since it was Ottomanterritory until the Ottoman fall in which the League of Nations decided to divide control between the UK and France, winners of WWI against the Ottoman's losing in WWI. In fact Syria did not even claim independence until 1941 (an empty claim until it was recognized in 1944). Lebanon was in a geographic area known as greater syria, not a political entity or country. It also was under Ottoman control until the Ottoman's lost WWI and then it became a French mandate. Lebanese independence actually came before Syria's as recognized in 1941 and held elections in 1943. Long before Syria ever established any kind of cohesive political unit.

It seems you are missing a number of points. One being that Lebanon was never a part of Syria, though many Syrians seem to think it was, or more to the fact, want to think it should be. A type of localized imperialism, not unlike Israel and some of their views of a "greater Israel".

Perhaps the largest act of instability was allowing Palestinian refugees to remain in Lebanon. Its seems that no matter where the Palestinian refugees go, they cause trouble. Look at their history in Jordan and Lebanon. The Phalange Lebanese played a very small role in that unstable history, especially relative to the Palestinian refugee situation.

In conclusion:

The Lebanese were independent with their own governing body before Syria was.

The Lebanese by and large desire to remain independent.

And it would seem that Syria doesn't like it and is willing to assassinate those that stand in their way. A reflection of the equivalent Israeli imperialism locally.

Regarding the barbarians from the south.

Why is it that Lebanon allows a rival army like Hezbollah to occupy its country?

Why isn't that independent army being blamed by you for dragging Lebanon into its personal war with Israel?

You seem to show a memory loss when it comes to the why's of things happenng rather than looking at the events as they actually are.

[baldar]

If by not much it means there weren't condominiums and glitzy shopping malls, you are correct. But for the million or so people who lived there, it was home. And if you gave me over a hundred billion dollars (thank you U.S. suckers,) I could make almost any patch of land flourish.

Well the UN and US pretty much matched that with the Palestinians. I don't see much there in Palestine today, do you? Apparently the Palestinians can't even with hundreds of billions of dollars, make their portion of the land flourish.

Again, I wonder where Arafat put those billions? I wonder what the deal was that Arafat's wife had with the Palestinian leadership?

The money was there, the leadership wasn't.

And when asked why they squandered it, they blithely point to the US and Israel, thoughno connetion really exists in the sense that the US and Israel did not make Arafat and other Palestinian leaders theives. The leaders chose to do so on their own.

[drippinhun]

Why is it that Lebanon allows a rival army like Hezbollah to occupy its country?

Why isn't that independent army being blamed by you for dragging Lebanon into its personal war with Israel?



Why aren't you blaming the U.S. government for allowing the warring gangs throughout our country to mess up sections of entire cities? Israel lost 21 Jewish civilians and 116 soldiers killed during the invasion. Should we add in the 18 Israeli Arabs who were excluded from Jews-only bomb shelters? 1088 Lebanese civilians were killed over the same time period and 15,000 homes destroyed. Israel launched 177,000 missiles, bombs and artillery shells (not counting cluster bomblets.) The Lebanese resistance killed about four Israeli soldiers for each Israeli civilian killed, suggesting they were trying to fend off the invaders. Israel killed approximately ten civilians for each fighter they killed.

And this was a Proportional response to the couple of IDF soldiers who were trespassing and captured in Lebanon? And this was after continual raids, killings and kidnapping of Lebanese civilians by the IDF prior to the capture of a few IDF soldiers? Maybe you believe so. Even the majority of people of Israel disagree.

[drippinhun]

Well the UN and US pretty much matched that with the Palestinians. I don't see much there in Palestine today, do you? Apparently the Palestinians can't even with hundreds of billions of dollars, make their portion of the land flourish.

Again, I wonder where Arafat put those billions? I wonder what the deal was that Arafat's wife had with the Palestinian leadership?

The money was there, the leadership wasn't.

And when asked why they squandered it, they blithely point to the US and Israel, thoughno connetion really exists in the sense that the US and Israel did not make Arafat and other Palestinian leaders theives. The leaders chose to do so on their own.

What do leaders have to do with the Israeli military murdering civilians? Here is a picture from today:

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/6/1/1_221094_1_5.jpg

Two Palestinian children, age 12 and 13, were murdered by IDF watchtower sharpshooters while scavaging for scrap metal in order to eik out an existance. The Israelis military claims they thought they were suspicious and trying to plant something near their Wall. (Incidentally, at the Wall that was paid for by U.S. taxpayer's money funneled through the World Bank.)

[baldar]

Why aren't you blaming the U.S. government for allowing the warring gangs throughout our country to mess up sections of entire cities? Israel lost 21 Jewish civilians and 116 soldiers killed during the invasion. Should we add in the 18 Israeli Arabs who were excluded from Jews-only bomb shelters? 1088 Lebanese civilians were killed over the same time period and 15,000 homes destroyed. Israel launched 177,000 missiles, bombs and artillery shells (not counting cluster bomblets.) The Lebanese resistance killed about four Israeli soldiers for each Israeli civilian killed, suggesting they were trying to fend off the invaders. Israel killed approximately ten civilians for each fighter they killed.

And this was a Proportional response to the couple of IDF soldiers who were trespassing and captured in Lebanon? And this was after continual raids, killings and kidnapping of Lebanese civilians by the IDF prior to the capture of a few IDF soldiers? Maybe you believe so. Even the majority of people of Israel disagree.

Proportional response doesn't work with extremists. One wonders why the extremists didn't care about the who the bombs fell on.

You are again playing the amnesiac. The kidnapping of the IDF soldiers was little more than a clumination of several, no, many incursions into Israel.

But then you are diverting. Why does Lebanon allow a rival army in its country? Why aren't you decrying such a terrible thing. A rival army that drags the entire nation, unwillingly into a conflict?

Perhaps you don't have an answer?

[baldar]

What do leaders have to do with the Israeli military murdering civilians? Here is a picture from today:

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/6/1/1_221094_1_5.jpg

Two Palestinian children, age 12 and 13, were murdered by IDF watchtower sharpshooters while scavaging for scrap metal in order to eik out an existance. The Israelis military claims they thought they were suspicious and trying to plant something near their Wall. (Incidentally, at the Wall that was paid for by U.S. taxpayer's money funneled through the World Bank.)

I am amazed at the number of photo ops the Palestinians make available. They must find their children cheap and easily replaced. Just as they use retarded children to be suicide bombers.

One wonders how you yourself can be so uncaring. Wouldn't a stable Palestine with an authority to ensure the citizens are safe, keep such incidents from occurring? Again the questions go unanswered.

But you seem to be manipulated by the same.

Well the UN and US pretty much matched that with the Palestinians. I don't see much there in Palestine today, do you? Apparently the Palestinians can't even with hundreds of billions of dollars, make their portion of the land flourish.

Again, I wonder where Arafat put those billions? I wonder what the deal was that Arafat's wife had with the Palestinian leadership?

The money was there, the leadership wasn't.

And when asked why they squandered it, they blithely point to the US and Israel, thoughno connetion really exists in the sense that the US and Israel did not make Arafat and other Palestinian leaders theives. The leaders chose to do so on their own.

Why don't you ask yourself those self same questions?

[OPGhostdog]

I would like to hear the answer to drippinhun question.
[quoted=drippinhun] Why aren't you blaming the U.S. government for allowing the warring gangs throughout our country to mess up sections of entire cities?

We are over in the Middle East dictating so why not dictate here
at home to ice the crime and drugs? I bet if any answer is given
it will be a reply to sidestep the question.

[baldar]

Waring gangs in the US is a hyperbole. I don't see cafes being exploded by suicide bombers. I don't see show school buses being blown up by crazed individuals or dupes that are mentally retarded. I don't see anything near the craziness in Palestine, I have seen Compton and I have seen Old Jerusalem. Old Jerusalem is much much worse.

The warring gangs do not threaten the very foundations of our nation here at home. In fact they are on the wane the US puts every effort into putting them down. They are not nearly the problem of say, a secondary army armed by an outside country. Nowhere near that level.

I do not blame the government because it is trying to do things, and it does follow the rule of law in that the citizens decide how harshly to deal with these gangs through the laws passed.


Now one wonders if my questions will be answered or avoided? It will speak volumes of the honesty in which we assess the situation.



We are over in the Middle East dictating so why not dictate here
at home to ice the crime and drugs? I bet if any answer is given
it will be a reply to sidestep the question.

More hyperbole and untrue. We don't dictate in the Middle East. If the US actually did do that the countries and parties involved would act with more swiftness and less reluctance. Even in Iraq (which some of you have an issue with, perhaps you don't like democracies, or perhaps you prefer Saddam Hussein in charge, neither option is very moral in my view), the country carries out its actions on its own terms, and all the US can do is threaten to withdraw. I hardly call that "dictating". Syria certainly doesn't listen, neither does Iran. So how is the US dictating?

Finally there is a third component. The idea (which is ridiculous in a sense) that the US should have either a perfect domestic policy prior to directing policy abroad through international actions. To ignore the international implications of the attempted hegeomony of Iran in the region is hubris and without merit. Simple as that, and its little more than a debating tactic used in order to avoid the real issues involved.

Now lets see if you boys actually have the guts to face the issues you have not yet faced in regard to both the Palestinian corruption, Hezbollah interference in Lebanon (ie read Iranian) and the attempted Iranian hegemony.

I think I have been more than factual and forthcoming. I believe the two of you have been less so, in attempts to divert the debate since you are uncomfortable with the potential answers you will be forced to find.

[Cheshire Cat]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Why+Do+Arabs+hate+the+U.S&btnG=Google+Search
Last link on the first page.

[9sublime]

One wonders how you yourself can be so uncaring. Wouldn't a stable Palestine with an authority to ensure the citizens are safe, keep such incidents from occurring? Again the questions go unanswered.



Do you think that a government is a government, and it weilds the same power as yours. Are you that naive? This government doesnt have the power to stop things like this, and it shouldn't have to stop children picking up scrap metal for money anyway, they aren't doing anything wrong.

[OPGhostdog]

[quote=baldar] More hyperbole and untrue. We don't dictate in the Middle East. If the US actually did do that the countries and parties involved would act with more swiftness and less reluctance. Even in Iraq (which some of you have an issue with, perhaps you don't like democracies, or perhaps you prefer Saddam Hussein in charge, neither option is very moral in my view), the country carries out its actions on its own terms, and all the US can do is threaten to withdraw. I hardly call that "dictating". Syria certainly doesn't listen, neither does Iran. So how is the US dictating?

First of all who is the two that you spoken about when you said
I believe the two of you have been less so, in attempts to divert
the debate since you are uncomfortable with the potential answers
you will be forced to find.

Democracies? Show me where democracy is taking place in Iraq?
With Saddam or without Saddam Iraq is facing its own situations,
and to me the USA isn't making things any better. You spoke
about threating to withdraw. To me we should withdraw or shut
the hell up. The withdraw sounds just like a kid telling another
kid..if you don't play right I won't play with you. In this world
today either you do it or you don't.

[drippinhun]

Waring gangs in the US is a hyperbole. I don't see cafes being exploded by suicide bombers. I don't see show school buses being blown up by crazed individuals or dupes that are mentally retarded. I don't see anything near the craziness in Palestine, I have seen Compton and I have seen Old Jerusalem. Old Jerusalem is much much worse.

The warring gangs do not threaten the very foundations of our nation here at home. In fact they are on the wane the US puts every effort into putting them down. They are not nearly the problem of say, a secondary army armed by an outside country. Nowhere near that level.

I do not blame the government because it is trying to do things, and it does follow the rule of law in that the citizens decide how harshly to deal with these gangs through the laws passed.

Now one wonders if my questions will be answered or avoided? It will speak volumes of the honesty in which we assess the situation.

More hyperbole and untrue. We don't dictate in the Middle East. If the US actually did do that the countries and parties involved would act with more swiftness and less reluctance. Even in Iraq (which some of you have an issue with, perhaps you don't like democracies, or perhaps you prefer Saddam Hussein in charge, neither option is very moral in my view), the country carries out its actions on its own terms, and all the US can do is threaten to withdraw. I hardly call that "dictating". Syria certainly doesn't listen, neither does Iran. So how is the US dictating?

Finally there is a third component. The idea (which is ridiculous in a sense) that the US should have either a perfect domestic policy prior to directing policy abroad through international actions. To ignore the international implications of the attempted hegeomony of Iran in the region is hubris and without merit. Simple as that, and its little more than a debating tactic used in order to avoid the real issues involved.

Now lets see if you boys actually have the guts to face the issues you have not yet faced in regard to both the Palestinian corruption, Hezbollah interference in Lebanon (ie read Iranian) and the attempted Iranian hegemony.

I think I have been more than factual and forthcoming. I believe the two of you have been less so, in attempts to divert the debate since you are uncomfortable with the potential answers you will be forced to find.

Your childish posturing to imply that we lack the fortitude to be honest is a joke. We know that Palestinians that have been pushed retaliate. And we know Iraqi nationalists are fighting each other in sectarian violence since the US fractured the enforced stability in that nation. Still it doesn't excuse the plain fact that Israel has methodically been destroying the Palestinains, that we support and prop up Israel's actions, and that the neocons helped persuade a brain damaged, drug abused, spoiled rich punk to do whatever it took to invade a sovereign nation that was not threatening us.

And now you have picked up the siren song against the next nation in the region who may have any economic power of self-sufficiency for our government to pick a fight to neuter their society. You are a sycophant of this Bush Iranian Plan. But for many of us, we don't support watching innocent people slaughtered. And especially when Iraq had never attacked us, such was the case with the USS Liberty Incident (http://www.ussliberty.org/) by your described, so-called ally.

[baldar]

Do you think that a government is a government, and it weilds the same power as yours. Are you that naive? This government doesnt have the power to stop things like this, and it shouldn't have to stop children picking up scrap metal for money anyway, they aren't doing anything wrong.

I do know the Palestinian government, if it wished too could indeed control the acts of terrorism. They have no problem breaking human rights for their won needs. I have seen them do it. The government has the power, but chooses to keep the people ignorant and squanders the hundreds of millions through corruption. Do you know how many shop keepers have to pay Fatah protection money? Not to mention the same number that have to pay the Hezbollah movement also.

You will forgive me for being cynical, but it appears you are the naive one to believe that the poor government in Palestine is somehow a victim of the parties it controls.

[baldar]

[quote=baldar] More hyperbole and untrue. We don't dictate in the Middle East. If the US actually did do that the countries and parties involved would act with more swiftness and less reluctance. Even in Iraq (which some of you have an issue with, perhaps you don't like democracies, or perhaps you prefer Saddam Hussein in charge, neither option is very moral in my view), the country carries out its actions on its own terms, and all the US can do is threaten to withdraw. I hardly call that "dictating". Syria certainly doesn't listen, neither does Iran. So how is the US dictating?

First of all who is the two that you spoken about when you said
I believe the two of you have been less so, in attempts to divert
the debate since you are uncomfortable with the potential answers
you will be forced to find.

Democracies? Show me where democracy is taking place in Iraq?
With Saddam or without Saddam Iraq is facing its own situations,
and to me the USA isn't making things any better. You spoke
about threating to withdraw. To me we should withdraw or shut
the hell up. The withdraw sounds just like a kid telling another
kid..if you don't play right I won't play with you. In this world
today either you do it or you don't.


Not just two, and not simply the person on the street.

I am sorry that you assume, when terrorist threaten anyone who votes and yet the vast majority still come out to vote, that you do not consider that a democracy. What do you call it? A dictatorship? ;) :D :rolleyes:

Of course you are naive to believe that if the US withdraws taht suddenly all will be well and everyone will go back to sheep farming. I suggest you attempt to review the potential actions in place, and do so honestly.

Again you still haven't answered the questions as I have honestly done. Would you like me to post them again? Or are you avoiding the issues that I have put forth in honesty.

[baldar]

In this world
today either you do it or you don't.

Both naive and incorrect. Please answer the question I placed here.

[OPGhostdog]

I do not think that the entire Arab world hates us. However below
is some of the things that Muslims is facing within our religion, and
nobody is taking the time to realize these things. We hate so now
we think that everyone hate like we do.

Middle East Tensions in the 1970s and 1980s
Though neither government agencies nor Arab or Muslim nongovernmental
organizations tracked incidents of bias-motivated crime in the 1970s, Arab
and Muslim activists point to the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and oil embargo as
a starting point for increased prejudice and hostility against their communities
in the United States. An Arab-American from Dearborn, Michigan described the
change in public attitudes towards Arab-Americans after 1973 in the following way:
"suddenly we were being held responsible for things we had nothing to do with and
no control over and maybe didn't even support in the first place. Activists contend
that hostility increased during the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. According to Albert
Mokhiber, former President of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC),
the oldest Arab-American civil rights organization, "Iranians were being targeted for
te crimes at that point... so were Arab-Americans, and Arabs and Iranians aren't the
same.

Arab-American activists also believe the ABSCAM scandal of 1980 heightened
negative stereotypes of Arabs. ABSCAM, short for "Arab Scam," was a federal
olitical corruption sting operation in which federal agents posed as wealthy sheiks
d offered bribes to politicians. As one Arab-American noted, after ABSCAM:
[A]ll Arabs were bad. Everybody was lumped together. You became that horrible,
hook-nosed, terrorizing murderer. You were not to be trusted. The founders of the
ADC credit the negative publicity surrounding the ABSCAM scandal as the impetus
for the group's creation.

The hijacking of TWA Flight 847 by Shiite militants on June 14, 1985 and the
hijacking of the Italian cruise liner the Achille Lauro on October 7, 1985 by the
Palstinian Liberation Organization were followed by a spate of violent crimes against
Arab and Muslims in the United States. On October 11, 1985, the regional director of
the ADC Southern California office, Alex Odeh, was killed when a bomb exploded outside
the front door of his office.The day before, Odeh had been on local television denying
PLO involvement in the hijacking. The ADC office in Washington, D.C., was firebombed
two months after Odeh's death.Two months before Odeh's murder, a bomb outside the
ADC's Boston office injured a policeman when it detonated while the officer was trying
to defuse it. In the same time period, a Houston mosque was pipebombed (causing $50,000
in damage), the windows of the Islamic Institute in Dearborn, Michigan were broken, and a mosque in Potomac, Maryland was vandalized. In 1986, the day the United States attacked Libya, five Arab students at Syracuse University were beaten while their attackers yelled anti-Arab epithets. Arab-American businesses in Dearborn, Michigan were also vandalized soon after the attack on Libya.

This is just a rundown of past events that took place here in the states,
and in the Middle East during the 1970s and 1980s. So this can really be
viewed as Do the United States hate Muslims?

This is a report that I received from a global Human Rights organization
years ago, and this thread title brought this piece to mind to show just
about the time this terrorist movement started.

[baldar]

Nothing substantive there, considering that the rights of Arabs in the United States are protected, but abroad, many of those self same Arab groups find it easy to justify attacks that protect no rights.

You still haven't answered the questions.

[baldar]

I understand that apologists abound for the myriad of terrorist attacks by different sects of Arabs. But you need to reread my original post.

By the way my follow up questions:

Bulldozing public buildings for punative terrorist action, you seem to be skipping that part. And yes, Israel has been stealing land too. Of course the Palestinians have given Israel every excuse to do just that. Everytime you blow up a kiosk or a school bus, the local government isn't going to feel bad about bulldozing the family home, or stealing their land. You seem to be skipping the brutality on one side while magnifying it on the other. And while Israelis aren't killing each other, I must say the Palestinians are doing far worse and killing more Palestinians than the Israelis are doing.

Regarding Lebanon:
You make a giant leap from 1926 to 1970's. It was peaceful coexistance for much of that time until Syria (which did not exist as a country since it was Ottomanterritory until the Ottoman fall in which the League of Nations decided to divide control between the UK and France, winners of WWI against the Ottoman's losing in WWI. In fact Syria did not even claim independence until 1941 (an empty claim until it was recognized in 1944). Lebanon was in a geographic area known as greater syria, not a political entity or country. It also was under Ottoman control until the Ottoman's lost WWI and then it became a French mandate. Lebanese independence actually came before Syria's as recognized in 1941 and held elections in 1943. Long before Syria ever established any kind of cohesive political unit.

It seems you are missing a number of points. One being that Lebanon was never a part of Syria, though many Syrians seem to think it was, or more to the fact, want to think it should be. A type of localized imperialism, not unlike Israel and some of their views of a "greater Israel".

Perhaps the largest act of instability was allowing Palestinian refugees to remain in Lebanon. Its seems that no matter where the Palestinian refugees go, they cause trouble. Look at their history in Jordan and Lebanon. The Phalange Lebanese played a very small role in that unstable history, especially relative to the Palestinian refugee situation.

In conclusion:

The Lebanese were independent with their own governing body before Syria was.

The Lebanese by and large desire to remain independent.

And it would seem that Syria doesn't like it and is willing to assassinate those that stand in their way. A reflection of the equivalent Israeli imperialism locally.

Regarding the barbarians from the south.

Why is it that Lebanon allows a rival army like Hezbollah to occupy its country?

Why isn't that independent army being blamed by you for dragging Lebanon into its personal war with Israel?

You seem to show a memory loss when it comes to the why's of things happenng rather than looking at the events as they actually are.

[jb_1430]

I do not think that the entire Arab world hates us. However below
is some of the things that Muslims is facing within our religion, and
nobody is taking the time to realize these things. We hate so now
we think that everyone hate like we do.
........
This is just a rundown of past events that took place here in the states,
and in the Middle East during the 1970s and 1980s. So this can really be
viewed as Do the United States hate Muslims?

This is a report that I received from a global Human Rights organization
years ago, and this thread title brought this piece to mind to show just
about the time this terrorist movement started.

During the 70s and 80s there were probably 100 churches burned. Numerous Jewish Temples vandalized. Probably thousands of crimes commited against whites because they were white, and blacks because they were black. "Do the United States hate" Christians, Jews, Whites and Blacks? MARK

[rmbarron]

Do you know how many shop keepers have to pay Fatah protection money?

Shoot. We pay protection money everyday. It's called taxes.

[OPGhostdog]

During the 70s and 80s there were probably 100 churches burned. Numerous Jewish Temples vandalized. Probably thousands of crimes commited against whites because they were white, and blacks because they were black. "Do the United States hate" Christians, Jews, Whites and Blacks? MARK

JB, How come whenever something happened to Blacks is mentioned,
whites seem to always want to twist the subject around, and that
is what you have done mentioning Jewish temples. I was talking about
Black homes and churchs, and here you come with your non-senses.
Plus you included the question Do the United States hate Christians,
Jews, Whites, and Blacks?

You're a member of the United States try answering your own
question. The answer to this topic is a simple answer as well,
and that's because most of you can't stand arabs.

[KingBall]

Why Arabs Hate the US


Here's a former terrorists explanation.

I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist
By HASSAN BUTT - More by this author »

Last updated at 07:38am on 2nd July 2007

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.


By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

The attempts to cause mass destruction in London and Glasgow are so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that they are likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.

For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."

I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again.


Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the July 7 bombings, and I were both part of the network - I met him on two occasions.

And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.

If we were interested in justice, you may ask, how did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting such a (flawed) Utopian goal?

How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?

There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.

In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.


The notion of a global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain.

For decades, radicals have been exploiting the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state - typically by starting debate with the question: "Are you British or Muslim?"

But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology.

They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever - and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, I repeatedly came across those who had tried to raise these issues with mosque authorities only to be banned from their grounds.

Every time this happened it felt like a moral and religious victory for us because it served as a recruiting sergeant for extremism.

Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism.

A handful of scholars from the Middle East have tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised so long ago by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion.

In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me as a far more potent argument because it involves recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief.

For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here.

But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

However, it isn't enough for responsible Muslims to say that, because they feel at home in Britain, they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers.

Because so many in the Muslim community refuse to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day.

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism.

Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence.

And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770