Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/12/2013 11:00:56 PM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

A lot of what you are quoting above are deliberate mistranslations. In the Q'ran it specifically says that to become a follower, that it has to be done without reservation or coercion, which contradicts them. Much of what you write above is probably taken out of context, it is late and I don't have the time to go through it, but I am always suspicious when people quote things like you just did.


I'be heard that before the whole out of context mis translation argument, but so far I haven't seen anyone who says it show a more correct translation that refutes it....

as for the out of context, maybe, maybe not, but with 15 seperate lines you have to admit there does seem to be a reoccuring theme there....

the whole christins did this and mulsems did that 100 or 200 years ago is a moot point, how bout we talk about todays world not ancient history

the point is back in the day everybody was killing everybody that was the reality of the world at that time, but it seems to me pretty much everyone has evolved past that point EXCEPT the muslems. they seem to be living in the world of the land of the lost where time stopped about 200 or 300 years ago

I see only two possible outcomes over the long term, like a child who plays with matches, and sets fires, either one day they set a fire that burns the house to the ground, or the parent eventually says enough is enough and take thier belt off and whips em till they can't sit down for a month, and makes them realize there are consquesnes for thier actions

the world has toleratd thier behavior, made excuses for them (ohhh they are just misunderstood) for a LONG TIME now, its getting close to time they either grow up or get punished for thier actions

in your post you say, "In the Q'ran it specifically says that to become a follower, that it has to be done without reservation or coercion" ok fine but that doesn't address what they do with those that do not convert freely...

seems like kinda of a bad joke, convert or DIE, OK I'll convert, OK but are you SURE you're doing this of your own free will??

< Message edited by BitYakin -- 7/12/2013 11:10:29 PM >

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/12/2013 11:17:31 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
Nonie Darwish puts the 'it is only a mistranslation' thing to rest by quoting the Quran and the hadiths chapter and verse and offering exhaustively researched references that anyone can look up. It does say that anyone who question the Caliph, must be killed, unequivocably.



Some of the claims about Islam are misapprehended... either deliberately or not.

Classic example is 'Jihad'... the StormFront crowd claims it means a duty to wage holy war against all infidels.

People who dig a little deeper find readings that teach 'Jihad' is a duty to wage holy war against one's own shortcomings. Dig even deeper, and it can mean both.

'Sharia' is imputed to mean 'Stone women to death and ignore all Western laws'. Closer examination reveals that it is the equivalent of Mand Talmudic laws on what to eat, what to wear, how to worship etc. Keep digging and just like the OT, it says to stone women to death...


People just aren't 2 dimensional enough for any singular label or narrative to be useful in managing ideas, or behavior.




quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

A lot of what you are quoting above are deliberate mistranslations. In the Q'ran it specifically says that to become a follower, that it has to be done without reservation or coercion, which contradicts them. Much of what you write above is probably taken out of context, it is late and I don't have the time to go through it, but I am always suspicious when people quote things like you just did.


I'be heard that before the whole out of context mis translation argument, but so far I haven't seen anyone who says it show a more correct translation that refutes it....

as for the out of context, maybe, maybe not, but with 15 seperate lines you have to admit there does seem to be a reoccuring theme there....

the whole christins did this and mulsems did that 100 or 200 years ago is a moot point, how bout we talk about todays world not ancient history

the point is back in the day everybody was killing everybody that was the reality of the world at that time, but it seems to me pretty much everyone has evolved past that point EXCEPT the muslems. they seem to be living in the world of the land of the lost where time stopped about 200 or 300 years ago

I see only two possible outcomes over the long term, like a child who plays with matches, and sets fires, either one day they set a fire that burns the house to the ground, or the parent eventually says enough is enough and take thier belt off and whips em till they can't sit down for a month, and makes them realize there are consquesnes for thier actions

the world has toleratd thier behavior, made excuses for them (ohhh they are just misunderstood) for a LONG TIME now, its getting close to time they either grow up or get punished for thier actions



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/13/2013 8:12:28 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

Read up on the history of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1798 (where it famously totally makes fools of the religious right in this country, when it says the US is not a Christian nation in black and white), when Muslim countries from North Africa were preying on US ships, often taking their crews into captivity to be used as Galley slaves, it is why there is the line in the Marine Corps hymn ('to the shores of Tripoli')....:).


This is more of an apples to oranges comparison. I don't consider the war with the Barbary Pirates to be the same as what is happening today. The French and the British were doing the same thing to us at that time (seizing ships, impressment), eventually leading to war with the British and a "quasi-war" with the French. Our country was weak at the time, so they did it just because they could, not because they had any particular reason for it (other than greed).

Mainly, I was referring to 100-150 years ago, a time when our policies (both domestic and foreign) were much more malignant and aggressive than today (or 200 years ago, for that matter), and yet, other countries didn't hate us nearly as much as they do now. This was mainly in response to the viewpoint that the Arabs hate us because our values and beliefs, that we're "infidels," but if that was the motive for their dislike, then why did they wait this long to tell us?

quote:


To get into the root causes of all this would take several books, and it isn't just the US, the British left a mess in the middle east, forming 'countries' that made no sense tribally, and let us not forget the giant shaft of 1949, when Britain KO'ed the two state solution for Palestine, insisting that Hashemite Saudis who had fled Saudi Arabia be allowed to take what is now Jordan, which was supposed to be a Palestinian state.


This has nothing to do with their attitudes towards the British. If they hate America because of what the British did in that region, then all that proves is that they're geographically illiterate.

quote:


The reasons are many, but to a large extent the hatred is because the US preaches freedom and democracy yet we in that reason meddled, often to keep brutal dictators in power, because we could 'trust them'.....keep in mind during the Cold War the US government viewed democracy with not a little bit of suspicion, because they feared, as they did in South America, that popular uprisings would lead to socialist governments, as did in Egypt with Nasser. We upended a democratically elected government in Iran and put the Shah on the throne for almost 30 years, we support the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the like, and then when oil became a big thing, when the US started importing oil, it became king...which left a lot of people poor, and frustrated, because the money was going to the ruling class and everyone else got nothing.


This would confirm my earlier point about ideological arrogance on our part. We think that "making the world safe for democracy" is a good thing, and because too many Americans (both left and right) arrogantly believe this, it plays right into the hands of the oilmen and other geopolitical manipulators. Even the author of this article displays indications of such blind ideological arrogance, and this is the problem I'm addressing here.

I honestly believe that much of the world can accept the basic concepts of greed and imperialism, since that's something humans have had to deal with for thousands of years, especially the Middle East. While this might seem like the obvious reason to hate America, this may only cover the tip of the iceberg.

Many Westerners try to apply their own values to the Middle East and think "This is the reason *I* would hate America if I was in the Middle East, so this must be the reason they hate America, too."

So, naturally, our assumptions about their motives are largely materialistic. We mistakenly assume that everyone in the world is just like us, that in each one of these people "is an American trying to come out" (just like the line in Full Metal Jacket). Even if we try to put ourselves in their shoes, we still invariably end up looking through Western eyes.

quote:


The middle east also became a chessboard for the cold war; the US supported Israel, the USSR Egypt and the Syrians, South Yemen, and it became a kind of proxy war when the arab countries pulled their various invasions, USSR equipped troops on one side, the US equipped Israelis on the other and that added to it.


This was definitely a huge factor in the Middle East, but once again, the Cold War was ideological in nature, so our motives were mainly rooted in the ideological arrogance I mentioned above. I think that the author of the article in the OP indicates similar motives when he speaks of "emerging and struggling" democracies, insinuating a call for American interventionism on an ideological basis, which is what we've been doing all along (and which is largely used as a mask to cover imperialism and greed).

I think that we're in agreement that our policies are the primary motive behind their antagonism towards the U.S., but my point is that our perceptions of the outside world are what lead to the policies in question.

quote:


Then, too, comes Israel, where without trying to cast blame on one side only, there has been shortsighted US policy, in part because of the incredibly strong Israeli lobby in the US, that has led us to be a little less strong with Israel then we should. You cannot claim to be bargaining in good faith when Israel is allowed to build all these settlements in Palestinian territory to please the Ultra Orthodox in their country (who frankly I find as repugnant as I do the militant Islamic types; they may not plant terrorist bombs, but they cause a lot of damage to Israel that we end up paying for), or when we don't use the very potent amount of aid Israel gets to gain concessions and stop people like Netanyahu from dealing out of both sides of his mouth (and before someone starts the rant about the Palestinians, what they represent, I realize what you are saying, and i don't disagree either, they also are dealing out of both sides of their mouth, and then some, when they have this idiotic dream that suddenly they are going to take the whole thing, there was no country of Palestine, it never was, was owned by others for several thousand years). Personally I think most of the Arab world could give a crap less about the real plight of the Palestinians, it is just propoganda, but it is effective.


I agree with this part completely. The situation you're outlining has been a tragically insurmountable problem which probably never should have happened to begin with. America had a role in it, but our role was mainly peripheral until after World War II. Other great powers had more direct control over the region and bear the lion's share of responsibility for how it all turned out. Americans were duped into thinking that it was "our" problem mainly for ideological reasons, as I've been pointing out. Of course, in regards to Israel, some of U.S. support has also been rooted in religion and the notion that it is "God's will" that America should support Israel. However, I consider religion to be just another ideology, so it pretty much comes down to the same thing.

In hindsight, my view is that this whole situation could have been avoided with better planning. I think we started paving our current road to hell somewhere around the time of the ending of the First World War. This was a time when ideological arrogance and skewed perceptions of the world screwed the planet up so badly that we're still trying to fix the damage even to this day. And we still keep making the same mistakes, over and over, so nothing ever really gets solved.

With the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the whole issue is the land itself, the "Holy Land." If it's just a matter of finding a place for these people to live (whether Israeli or Palestinian), then they could have found a place anywhere in the world which might have been suitable. But they all want possession of that one particular piece of ground. Our role in this seems somewhat absurd when you think about it, but ultimately, I think the people living in that region are going to have to resolve it themselves. I can actually sympathize with both sides. They both have their own point of view which they believe in strongly, so that doesn't leave much room for compromise or any permanent peace plan that both sides can agree on. If the U.S. wants to try to mediate, then we'd have to be totally neutral, which we're not.

quote:


One of the mistakes we make about Islam and why muslims seem to gravitate towards trying to make countries ruled by Sharia law is because if you read the Q'ran, a lot of it is about social justice, about the poor not getting screwed by the rich, one of its goals, even moreso then Christianity, was to create a world where the poor are taken care of and not exploited. Their rules on interest bearing loans being illegal is part of that, the Q'ran is full of that, and to many people, they see that as a hope that maybe, just maybe, they will see some social and economic justice in a part of the world where that is scarce. It isn't that I agree with that or think it is a great think (I don't, very simply because the Q'ran is an idealized book the way Marx's economic theories were or Plato's republic, and in practice they end up being oppressive, not freeing, just look at what the USSR did with Marx, or Iran with the Q'ran). Maybe if we saw it for what it was, we would find a way to help people their gain some justice. Our naivite about the "Arab Spring" in part was in thinking that this was the revolt of middle class, educated people, who would be less likely to go for a theocracy, but the problem is they may have triggered the revolt, but in the end the masses decide, who are uneducated, poor and see Islam as a shining beacon. If you look at Egypt, those opposed to Morsi were the educated classes, not the poor majority, they were for him.


You make some good points here, however in my own study of the Quran and a brief flirtation I had with Islam during the 1980s, I also became more acutely aware of the intensity of religious schisms. I was always aware of the religious right and the West's history of religious intolerance, but with Islam, it's like the religious right on steroids.

I agree that a lot of the Quran is about social justice, but then, the same can be said about the Bible and other religious texts from other regions. Just like political ideologues, religions seem to think that they know what's best for all the people, and if practiced honorably, fairly, justly, and ethically, it might actually work to promote social justice for a time. Human nature being what it is, it will invariably turn sour in the end.

quote:


I don't think it is because of the freedom of the US, or that we allow women full rights or don't stone gays to death, despite the religious right trying to use that as justification to oppress women and gays to please the critics *lol*, I think it is because they feel the US had the power to do good, and instead, in blind self interest, just piled on their misery. I could argue that a lot of what they feel isn't true, it is perception, but it doesn't matter....and when our so called friends, the Saudis, spend their not small wealth building radical islamic schools all over the middle east, when they sponsor media and such that spreads lies and half truths in order to curry favor with the radicals, it doesn't help.


The US had the power to do good, but those on our side acting in self-interest probably weren't blind. However, they seemed to do their best to keep the rest of the American people blind, and that's where the problem seems to emanate from.

Our relationship with the Saudis has always been rather strange and somewhat incoherent within the scope of America's overall foreign policy. I think that we've created ourselves a rather tangled mess which we can't easily extricate ourselves from.

Whenever I've talked to people from that area of the world, my sense is that they don't really hate us or dislike us. I think they're just more confused and befuddled than anything else. They already know what America does to them, but they're not sure why. They get conflicting views and mixed messages which get garbled and confused from both ends. The radical view offers a certain level of clarity and simplicity compared to our muddled and inconsistent propaganda.

That points up another root problem with American politicians, since most of them have made their careers relying upon the short attention-span of their constituencies. For whatever reason, Americans have a shorter attention-span than most other people around the world, and the same tactics which bring success to American politicians don't seem to have the same results when applied to some other countries.

quote:


I tend to agree with others, I think the biggest mistake the US made after 9/11 was not pulling a Manhattan project and getting the world off of oil within 10 years (not just the US, the world)..you do that, and you have the leeway to let the Middle East figure out things for themselves, rather than keeping petty ante tyrants like the Royal families in power.....among other things, basing your GDP on oil alone almost guarantees stratification, because there is no need for a middle class, who might otherwise be building a real economy.


I agree, although we should have been doing that as far back as the 1970s when the Arab oil embargo hit us. That led to an energy crisis which compelled some changes in policy and attitudes towards energy consumption, but not nearly enough. The U.S. had far too many irons in the fire, with the Cold War, Vietnam, Watergate, the Israeli-Arab wars, domestic issues such as civil rights, urban unrest, and with inflation and an energy crisis to boot. A lot of people could see the problem and wanted to do something about it, but it turned into a lot of talk that went nowhere until Reagan got elected. That's when U.S. policy became even stranger than it already had been.

quote:


I think with Egypt we learned a lesson, that Democracy doesn't always provide results we would want, it is why our founding fathers put the checks and balances and escape clauses they did; had Egypt had an electoral college of educated people, theoretically they could over stopped the Brotherhoods from taking power, it is why the electoral college exists in this country, so Vox Populi couldn't elect a dictator or worse.


Our politicians, both past and present, clearly know the consequences of democracy, but some could cynically argue that ideology is often used as a mask to cover the simple grab for wealth and power that dominates human politics in general. In the Middle East, religion can often be used in place of ideology, whereas in the West, religion has been downplayed and relegated to a more peripheral role in society (even despite the presence of the religious right in U.S. politics). In previous eras in U.S. and Western history, religion was a more prominent influence, and our policies and practices of those eras reflected that.

I would question whether an electoral college of educated people could make much of a difference. Usually, whenever there's some large scale resistance movement or revolutionary faction, there's a core group of educated people to influence and lead them. That's how it's been in this country, too.

quote:


BTW,be really careful about using Arab to mean all Muslims or Middle Easterners. The Iranians are Persian, and they would be insulted to be called Arabs, and for example, The Sudanese are not Arab, they are black I believe, whereas the Iraqis are Arab.


Yeah, I knew that. Thanks for the tip.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/13/2013 11:02:21 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

I suppose I didn't specificly say this, but I never intended to imply I thought the USA was founded or in fact was a chirstian nation/gov't

I was just saying as many experts have said the intent of the line is clear, it was put there to assure that it was clear the treaty was between nations and not religions

that anti religious people choose to infer it means more than that, is ALSO hogwash

its also noteworthy that 10 years later when the treaty was ratified again that line was removed! I know it was 10 years later, but its also pretty much the same people in power 10 years later.

here is another interesting point, the treaty if we take it as the anti religion people like to take it says the country was not FOUNDED on christian principles, but it does not say that the ountry had not become a christian country

take for example a company named BSR, in ww2 it was started/founded as British Small Arms, then after the war stopped making guns and started making motorcycles, so just because it was founded as ONE thing, doesn't preclude it from BECOMING something entierly differant over a few year period

and AGAIN I am not saying the USA is or was or was ever intended to be a christian nation, just saying the treaty of tripoli proves nothing one way or the other!

its like comparing these two statements the man was shot by the shooter and the man stepped in front of the gun as he fired... both people viewed the same event, in both statments the man is dead, the only differance is perspective based on bias. one implies intent by the shooter, the other implies an accident...


It does prove something in that they put those words in an official government document whose meaning is clear. If the US was thought of as being a 'Christian nation" by the founders, they would not have written those lines, they would have said something to the effect that 'if the US is a Christian nation, that does not make Muslims our enemy" or some such. The idea that this just is saying it is between two governments is really stretching it, if they wished to say this they could have said "this is a treaty between the United States of America and the Caliphate of Tunisia" (or whatever it was); not to mention the obvious, that treaties negotiated by diplomats and ratified by the Senate and Presidency are functions of the government, it is implied that this is government to government, that is based in 1798 on many centuries of diplomatic protocol and international law. In that reality, there is no reason to make clear that this is between governments/nations, because many centuries of diplomatic and international law already make that clear. The only reason to have those words is for the very reason they were written (do some delving, there are writings from the time talking about it), that the Tunisians and such who were harassing our ships did so out of the notion that the US was a Christian nation and thus were hostile to their faith, and the treaty says we are not hostile to your faith because we are not a Christian nation. The right wing interpretation you are giving it is not what contemporary writers wrote about it, they said it was done to dispel the notion that the Tunisians had that the US was truly a "Christian" nation the way countries like Italy, Spain and France were (where religion and state are mixed), the logic saying that it is to show this is government to government not only is unneeded since by its very nature it is government to government, but rather to state in a legally binding documennt
that the US was not a Christian country, it was secular in terms of the government. Add this up with the first amendment, and it blows out the theocratic notions of things.

By 10 years later a lot of the players would have changed, 10 years was a lot of time back then, given lifespans. Adams was out of office, Jefferson was in the last year of his term as president, and many of those in the Senate were no longer the same people they were in 1798. I never said that the people in the US might have viewed themselves as Christian, I am saying that the government outright stated officially in that treaty that Christianity had nothing to do with our government. I think it is also interesting to note that in Europe, such a statement would be unheard of, since in most countries Church and State were entangled, it was assumed, and the only reason to put that in that treaty would be to differentiate the US from the European powers, which every one Church and State were tangled together by tradition and law. Claiming it is simply making it a declaration between governments is very much what conservatives do reading the bible, it is taking it out of the context of the times.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/13/2013 11:20:26 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

Read up on the history of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1798 (where it famously totally makes fools of the religious right in this country, when it says the US is not a Christian nation in black and white), when Muslim countries from North Africa were preying on US ships, often taking their crews into captivity to be used as Galley slaves, it is why there is the line in the Marine Corps hymn ('to the shores of Tripoli')....:).


This is more of an apples to oranges comparison. I don't consider the war with the Barbary Pirates to be the same as what is happening today. The French and the British were doing the same thing to us at that time (seizing ships, impressment), eventually leading to war with the British and a "quasi-war" with the French. Our country was weak at the time, so they did it just because they could, not because they had any particular reason for it (other than greed).

Mainly, I was referring to 100-150 years ago, a time when our policies (both domestic and foreign) were much more malignant and aggressive than today (or 200 years ago, for that matter), and yet, other countries didn't hate us nearly as much as they do now. This was mainly in response to the viewpoint that the Arabs hate us because our values and beliefs, that we're "infidels," but if that was the motive for their dislike, then why did they wait this long to tell us?

quote:


To get into the root causes of all this would take several books, and it isn't just the US, the British left a mess in the middle east, forming 'countries' that made no sense tribally, and let us not forget the giant shaft of 1949, when Britain KO'ed the two state solution for Palestine, insisting that Hashemite Saudis who had fled Saudi Arabia be allowed to take what is now Jordan, which was supposed to be a Palestinian state.


This has nothing to do with their attitudes towards the British. If they hate America because of what the British did in that region, then all that proves is that they're geographically illiterate.

quote:


The reasons are many, but to a large extent the hatred is because the US preaches freedom and democracy yet we in that reason meddled, often to keep brutal dictators in power, because we could 'trust them'.....keep in mind during the Cold War the US government viewed democracy with not a little bit of suspicion, because they feared, as they did in South America, that popular uprisings would lead to socialist governments, as did in Egypt with Nasser. We upended a democratically elected government in Iran and put the Shah on the throne for almost 30 years, we support the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the like, and then when oil became a big thing, when the US started importing oil, it became king...which left a lot of people poor, and frustrated, because the money was going to the ruling class and everyone else got nothing.


This would confirm my earlier point about ideological arrogance on our part. We think that "making the world safe for democracy" is a good thing, and because too many Americans (both left and right) arrogantly believe this, it plays right into the hands of the oilmen and other geopolitical manipulators. Even the author of this article displays indications of such blind ideological arrogance, and this is the problem I'm addressing here.

I honestly believe that much of the world can accept the basic concepts of greed and imperialism, since that's something humans have had to deal with for thousands of years, especially the Middle East. While this might seem like the obvious reason to hate America, this may only cover the tip of the iceberg.

Many Westerners try to apply their own values to the Middle East and think "This is the reason *I* would hate America if I was in the Middle East, so this must be the reason they hate America, too."

So, naturally, our assumptions about their motives are largely materialistic. We mistakenly assume that everyone in the world is just like us, that in each one of these people "is an American trying to come out" (just like the line in Full Metal Jacket). Even if we try to put ourselves in their shoes, we still invariably end up looking through Western eyes.

quote:


The middle east also became a chessboard for the cold war; the US supported Israel, the USSR Egypt and the Syrians, South Yemen, and it became a kind of proxy war when the arab countries pulled their various invasions, USSR equipped troops on one side, the US equipped Israelis on the other and that added to it.


This was definitely a huge factor in the Middle East, but once again, the Cold War was ideological in nature, so our motives were mainly rooted in the ideological arrogance I mentioned above. I think that the author of the article in the OP indicates similar motives when he speaks of "emerging and struggling" democracies, insinuating a call for American interventionism on an ideological basis, which is what we've been doing all along (and which is largely used as a mask to cover imperialism and greed).

I think that we're in agreement that our policies are the primary motive behind their antagonism towards the U.S., but my point is that our perceptions of the outside world are what lead to the policies in question.

quote:


Then, too, comes Israel, where without trying to cast blame on one side only, there has been shortsighted US policy, in part because of the incredibly strong Israeli lobby in the US, that has led us to be a little less strong with Israel then we should. You cannot claim to be bargaining in good faith when Israel is allowed to build all these settlements in Palestinian territory to please the Ultra Orthodox in their country (who frankly I find as repugnant as I do the militant Islamic types; they may not plant terrorist bombs, but they cause a lot of damage to Israel that we end up paying for), or when we don't use the very potent amount of aid Israel gets to gain concessions and stop people like Netanyahu from dealing out of both sides of his mouth (and before someone starts the rant about the Palestinians, what they represent, I realize what you are saying, and i don't disagree either, they also are dealing out of both sides of their mouth, and then some, when they have this idiotic dream that suddenly they are going to take the whole thing, there was no country of Palestine, it never was, was owned by others for several thousand years). Personally I think most of the Arab world could give a crap less about the real plight of the Palestinians, it is just propoganda, but it is effective.


I agree with this part completely. The situation you're outlining has been a tragically insurmountable problem which probably never should have happened to begin with. America had a role in it, but our role was mainly peripheral until after World War II. Other great powers had more direct control over the region and bear the lion's share of responsibility for how it all turned out. Americans were duped into thinking that it was "our" problem mainly for ideological reasons, as I've been pointing out. Of course, in regards to Israel, some of U.S. support has also been rooted in religion and the notion that it is "God's will" that America should support Israel. However, I consider religion to be just another ideology, so it pretty much comes down to the same thing.

In hindsight, my view is that this whole situation could have been avoided with better planning. I think we started paving our current road to hell somewhere around the time of the ending of the First World War. This was a time when ideological arrogance and skewed perceptions of the world screwed the planet up so badly that we're still trying to fix the damage even to this day. And we still keep making the same mistakes, over and over, so nothing ever really gets solved.

With the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the whole issue is the land itself, the "Holy Land." If it's just a matter of finding a place for these people to live (whether Israeli or Palestinian), then they could have found a place anywhere in the world which might have been suitable. But they all want possession of that one particular piece of ground. Our role in this seems somewhat absurd when you think about it, but ultimately, I think the people living in that region are going to have to resolve it themselves. I can actually sympathize with both sides. They both have their own point of view which they believe in strongly, so that doesn't leave much room for compromise or any permanent peace plan that both sides can agree on. If the U.S. wants to try to mediate, then we'd have to be totally neutral, which we're not.

quote:


One of the mistakes we make about Islam and why muslims seem to gravitate towards trying to make countries ruled by Sharia law is because if you read the Q'ran, a lot of it is about social justice, about the poor not getting screwed by the rich, one of its goals, even moreso then Christianity, was to create a world where the poor are taken care of and not exploited. Their rules on interest bearing loans being illegal is part of that, the Q'ran is full of that, and to many people, they see that as a hope that maybe, just maybe, they will see some social and economic justice in a part of the world where that is scarce. It isn't that I agree with that or think it is a great think (I don't, very simply because the Q'ran is an idealized book the way Marx's economic theories were or Plato's republic, and in practice they end up being oppressive, not freeing, just look at what the USSR did with Marx, or Iran with the Q'ran). Maybe if we saw it for what it was, we would find a way to help people their gain some justice. Our naivite about the "Arab Spring" in part was in thinking that this was the revolt of middle class, educated people, who would be less likely to go for a theocracy, but the problem is they may have triggered the revolt, but in the end the masses decide, who are uneducated, poor and see Islam as a shining beacon. If you look at Egypt, those opposed to Morsi were the educated classes, not the poor majority, they were for him.


You make some good points here, however in my own study of the Quran and a brief flirtation I had with Islam during the 1980s, I also became more acutely aware of the intensity of religious schisms. I was always aware of the religious right and the West's history of religious intolerance, but with Islam, it's like the religious right on steroids.

I agree that a lot of the Quran is about social justice, but then, the same can be said about the Bible and other religious texts from other regions. Just like political ideologues, religions seem to think that they know what's best for all the people, and if practiced honorably, fairly, justly, and ethically, it might actually work to promote social justice for a time. Human nature being what it is, it will invariably turn sour in the end.

quote:


I don't think it is because of the freedom of the US, or that we allow women full rights or don't stone gays to death, despite the religious right trying to use that as justification to oppress women and gays to please the critics *lol*, I think it is because they feel the US had the power to do good, and instead, in blind self interest, just piled on their misery. I could argue that a lot of what they feel isn't true, it is perception, but it doesn't matter....and when our so called friends, the Saudis, spend their not small wealth building radical islamic schools all over the middle east, when they sponsor media and such that spreads lies and half truths in order to curry favor with the radicals, it doesn't help.


The US had the power to do good, but those on our side acting in self-interest probably weren't blind. However, they seemed to do their best to keep the rest of the American people blind, and that's where the problem seems to emanate from.

Our relationship with the Saudis has always been rather strange and somewhat incoherent within the scope of America's overall foreign policy. I think that we've created ourselves a rather tangled mess which we can't easily extricate ourselves from.

Whenever I've talked to people from that area of the world, my sense is that they don't really hate us or dislike us. I think they're just more confused and befuddled than anything else. They already know what America does to them, but they're not sure why. They get conflicting views and mixed messages which get garbled and confused from both ends. The radical view offers a certain level of clarity and simplicity compared to our muddled and inconsistent propaganda.

That points up another root problem with American politicians, since most of them have made their careers relying upon the short attention-span of their constituencies. For whatever reason, Americans have a shorter attention-span than most other people around the world, and the same tactics which bring success to American politicians don't seem to have the same results when applied to some other countries.

quote:


I tend to agree with others, I think the biggest mistake the US made after 9/11 was not pulling a Manhattan project and getting the world off of oil within 10 years (not just the US, the world)..you do that, and you have the leeway to let the Middle East figure out things for themselves, rather than keeping petty ante tyrants like the Royal families in power.....among other things, basing your GDP on oil alone almost guarantees stratification, because there is no need for a middle class, who might otherwise be building a real economy.


I agree, although we should have been doing that as far back as the 1970s when the Arab oil embargo hit us. That led to an energy crisis which compelled some changes in policy and attitudes towards energy consumption, but not nearly enough. The U.S. had far too many irons in the fire, with the Cold War, Vietnam, Watergate, the Israeli-Arab wars, domestic issues such as civil rights, urban unrest, and with inflation and an energy crisis to boot. A lot of people could see the problem and wanted to do something about it, but it turned into a lot of talk that went nowhere until Reagan got elected. That's when U.S. policy became even stranger than it already had been.

quote:


I think with Egypt we learned a lesson, that Democracy doesn't always provide results we would want, it is why our founding fathers put the checks and balances and escape clauses they did; had Egypt had an electoral college of educated people, theoretically they could over stopped the Brotherhoods from taking power, it is why the electoral college exists in this country, so Vox Populi couldn't elect a dictator or worse.


Our politicians, both past and present, clearly know the consequences of democracy, but some could cynically argue that ideology is often used as a mask to cover the simple grab for wealth and power that dominates human politics in general. In the Middle East, religion can often be used in place of ideology, whereas in the West, religion has been downplayed and relegated to a more peripheral role in society (even despite the presence of the religious right in U.S. politics). In previous eras in U.S. and Western history, religion was a more prominent influence, and our policies and practices of those eras reflected that.

I would question whether an electoral college of educated people could make much of a difference. Usually, whenever there's some large scale resistance movement or revolutionary faction, there's a core group of educated people to influence and lead them. That's how it's been in this country, too.

quote:


BTW,be really careful about using Arab to mean all Muslims or Middle Easterners. The Iranians are Persian, and they would be insulted to be called Arabs, and for example, The Sudanese are not Arab, they are black I believe, whereas the Iraqis are Arab.


Yeah, I knew that. Thanks for the tip.



Without even trying to answer your points, I think they all are fair in terms of perceptions. One of the things I think we need to recognize is that to deflect blame from themselves, the people ruling in that region have used and continue to use the US as an excuse. If you are a Saudi and are poor, government propaganda blames the US and the west , saying it is because they are greedy and rich and steal from our people (rather than the reality, the royal families are a bunch of bloated bastards who take 90% of the oil revenue for themselves and their families). In Egypt, starting with Nasser, people are told that it is the US imperialist policies that cause Egypt to be poor, that the US doesn't allow Egypt and the countries in the Mid East to develop, that they are poor because the US is well off.....which of course deflected from bad government policies and corruption that make the middle east such a stratified place, with most people living in poverty and a small class living in incredible luxury...). Sadat and then Mubarek did the same thing. In Egypt, if you are college educated, the only real jobs are with the government, and it can take 10 years and a lot of brides to get even an entry level job..

I didn't say they were mad at the US because of the British directly (though often the US is lumped in with 'the west' meaning Europe'), what I am saying is that the US, as the predominate superpower after WWII was left to deal with the mess that had been the British empire in the middle east, countries like Iraq and Iran, the whole Palestine Mandate, countries carved out of tribal areas with little thought other than how to control the population left a mess...and as you point out, thanks to ideology, the US didn't always make smart choices, we still don't. After 9/11 the wise move would have been to find a way to de-emphasize oil and stop it from being used as blackmail (note, having the US provide its own oil and natural gas wouldn't work, because those are traded globally, and if OPEC pulled another embargo, it would cause prices to rise worldwide, unless we decided ot nationalize the oil companies).....you make oil less valuable, and you are taking away incentives to support dictators and royal families, and also quite frankly cutting off terrorism from money (to give everyone pause, the IMF and World bank have tried to trace what happens with petro dollars going to the mideast; they can only track about 70% of it to its destination; ya think maybe part of that 70% is ending up in the wrong hands?)

I do think assuming it is because they see our decadent, immoral society is a fabrication of the religious right, I tend to agree that they are angry at the meddling the US has done (large truth to that) and the economic misery blamed on the US (grains of truth). It is interesting that the Egyptians elected the Brotherhood and suddenly found out that the milk and honey didn't flow, as they promised, hopefully what will happen is they will realize that the problems they face are internal problems that need to be solved and that it isn't going to come from the Q'ran or bible or whatever, and that the key is in good governing, not in faith.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 12:36:10 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

The reality is most Muslims don't hate Christians, the Saudis, The Iranians, The Egyptians represent minority viewpoints. Other than the tribal areas of the country, most Pakistani muslims don't hate the US, Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country and they don't hate us, most Muslims if they think of the US often think of it as a place to want to go, a lot of people come from the Muslim world, not because they want to bring Sharia here, but because they want to be free to live as they wish, too.



Assertion without suggestion of proof. No sources - just your idea of how things are.
Whereas, if you take polls of popularity of American in the arab world it is routinely in the teens or tweens. They may not hate us - but they sure don't like us.

And considering that the US and Israel are the Great Satan and the Little Satan - there's a good chance you're wrong.

Certainly a VERY sizable minority, if not an outright majority, numbering in the hundreds of millions Hate us.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 12:41:20 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Nonie Darwish puts the 'it is only a mistranslation' thing to rest by quoting the Quran and the hadiths chapter and verse and offering exhaustively researched references that anyone can look up. It does say that anyone who question the Caliph, must be killed, unequivocably.


Or anyone that makes an image of muhammed.


quote:

ORIGINAL:

as for the out of context, maybe, maybe not, but with 15 seperate lines you have to admit there does seem to be a reoccuring theme there....



Aw hell.. there's only 15 cause I got tired of quoting. Last time I looked into it in depth there were more than 223 quotes along the same lines.
Pleasant things like..

terrorize the unbelievers.
if muslims are weak, lie until strength is gathered and the enemy can be slaughtered.
It is a virtue to lie to the unbeliever.


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 7/14/2013 12:43:40 AM >

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 1:35:45 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Aw hell.. there's only 15 cause I got tired of quoting. Last time I looked into it in depth there were more than 223 quotes along the same lines.
Pleasant things like..

terrorize the unbelievers.
if muslims are weak, lie until strength is gathered and the enemy can be slaughtered.
It is a virtue to lie to the unbeliever.


Only 223 quotes that fit the ideological picture you are painting. I wonder how many quotes from the Bible or other religious foundation texts would sound much the same. The God of the Bible is quite a nasty one who enjoys ordering rapes, pillage, murder, often for the most trivial reasons, yet is unable to find it in Him/Her/Itself to to condemn slavery. One site ( www.evilbible.com ) that claims to have counted the number of corpses God leaves in His/Her/Its wake has the total in the millions. So much for the Christian God of 'Love'. I am not familiar with the Torah but I understand it shares the Old Testament (or much of it) with the Christian version. Historically, people claiming to act in the name of the Abrahamic religions have been responsible for tens if not hundreds of millions of deaths.

So quote all you like ...unless you wish to extend your critique to all the Abrahamic religions, your argument is at best selective. Indeed singling out one religion when many if not all major religions are equally guilty suggests a biased self interested agenda. Typically, apologists for Israel accuse their opponents of precisely the same crimes they overlook /ignore/whitewash when carried out by Zionists or their few remaining allies. No need to venture further than this thread for an example of this hypocrisy:
"Well from the tone of your posts that certainly seems to be why you hate us, but I really don't think you are qualified to speak for anyone else." thishereboi post #11 this thread.
The claim seems to be that any criticism of Israel can only be understood in terms of hate. I don't hate anyone but I can't say the same about apologists for a racist State that practices apartheid, ethnic cleansing, extra-judicial murder, and war crimes as matters of routine State policy.




< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 7/14/2013 1:55:35 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 6:02:07 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

"Well from the tone of your posts that certainly seems to be why you hate us, but I really don't think you are qualified to speak for anyone else." thishereboi post #11 this thread.
The claim seems to be that any criticism of Israel can only be understood in terms of hate. I don't hate anyone but I can't say the same about apologists for a racist State that practices apartheid, ethnic cleansing, extra-judicial murder, and war crimes as matters of routine State policy.


No the claim was that your posts show your hatred of the us and israel and the reasons behind it. You claim not to hate anyone, yet your words speak differently. Unless of course you love that "racist State that practices apartheid, ethnic cleansing, extra-judicial murder, and war crimes as matters of routine State policy." in which case I have to wonder how you talk about people you don't like

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 6:38:18 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
I still find the notion of trying to blame anyone but America for the Muslim worlds view of America laughable. Especially that the US had no input into middle eastern affairs until after WW2. Take a look at the Anglo American petroleum agreement in 1944.

As for Laurens idea that we drew lines on a map and didnt care less about the natives...... Take a look at your individual States and tell me what the difference is. History shifts border, it always has. Even Scotlands border with England isnt the original one.

Bin Laden himself stated he was opposed to US troops being in the Muslim Holy Land. I suspect given that other Saudi nationals were involved in 9/11 they felt much the same. They were not too happy about Bush and co installing a pro Iranian leader in Iraq either, which is probaly why Saudi supported Sunni insurgents.


(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 7:16:58 AM   
MrBukani


Posts: 1920
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline
1 iraqi's are not arabs
2 Indonesian muslims have been attacking christians for a long time. It just didn't hit the press that hard.
3 remember that bar in Bali that blew up?
4 while most christians believe scripture is inspired by God, most muslims believe the koran is the definitive word of allah.
5 since the koran is mainly a body/book of rules then you must also agree there is no jurisprudence in islam. Islamic law is set for eternity.
6 So it's obvious the only true muslim is what we call the extremist.
7 The so called moderate muslims have only one option to continue themselves. That is start a new faith and rewrite the koran.

8 You might find this documentary very interesting about the koran.

Al-Quran - The Original Syriac Manuscript & Interpretation

edit: this is a general reply to comments in the thread

< Message edited by MrBukani -- 7/14/2013 7:27:27 AM >

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 8:18:40 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

"Well from the tone of your posts that certainly seems to be why you hate us, but I really don't think you are qualified to speak for anyone else." thishereboi post #11 this thread.
The claim seems to be that any criticism of Israel can only be understood in terms of hate. I don't hate anyone but I can't say the same about apologists for a racist State that practices apartheid, ethnic cleansing, extra-judicial murder, and war crimes as matters of routine State policy.


No the claim was that your posts show your hatred of the us and israel and the reasons behind it. You claim not to hate anyone, yet your words speak differently. Unless of course you love that "racist State that practices apartheid, ethnic cleansing, extra-judicial murder, and war crimes as matters of routine State policy." in which case I have to wonder how you talk about people you don't like

It must be so difficult for you to compose posts now that you aren't allowed to call anyone an anti-Semite any more.

If you can't figure out why any one might be critical of a "racist State that practices apartheid, ethnic cleansing, extra-judicial murder, and war crimes as matters of routine State policy" then it probably isn't worth my while explaining it to you. I will say this: if you think it's motivated by hate, the only person you are deluding is yourself. Your posts give the impression that's not an uncommon occurrence.


< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 7/14/2013 8:23:49 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 8:50:50 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
The level of ignorance in this thread qualifies many of you for a job on Fox News!

Obama isn't responsible for good or bad results in Egypt, we can play a bit around the edges but we cant shape outcomes.

Muslims civilized Europe during the crusades and were tolerant of both jews and,christians,until quite recently and have never committed the level of attrocities the west has.

The blame for modern radicalized muslims can be laid at the foot of the cia during Rayguns,era.





(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 8:55:14 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

1 iraqi's are not arabs
2 Indonesian muslims have been attacking christians for a long time. It just didn't hit the press that hard.
3 remember that bar in Bali that blew up?
4 while most christians believe scripture is inspired by God, most muslims believe the koran is the definitive word of allah.
5 since the koran is mainly a body/book of rules then you must also agree there is no jurisprudence in islam. Islamic law is set for eternity.
6 So it's obvious the only true muslim is what we call the extremist.
7 The so called moderate muslims have only one option to continue themselves. That is start a new faith and rewrite the koran.

8 You might find this documentary very interesting about the koran.

Al-Quran - The Original Syriac Manuscript & Interpretation

edit: this is a general reply to comments in the thread

#2- So all Indonesian Muslims attack Christians, really? Attacks based in religion are common all over the world, and all that indicates is that all places have crazies. Remember Eric Rudolph? He set off a bomb at the 96 Olympics, was wanted for attacks on gay bars and abortion clinics, and was supported by so called Christians when he was on the lam from the law....In India, Hindus attack Muslims, Sikhs attack Hindus, and so forth.
If your argument is correct,then homeland security should round up all evangelical Christians and send them to Gitmo, since it is clear they pose a violent threat to everyone cause there have been bombings of gay bars, killings at abortion clinics and the like.

#3- The bar in Bali was done by Al Qaeda, it was a terrorist act aimed at foreigners, and as far as I know, those doing it were not natives.
#4- Um, really? The fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that it contains no problems, no mistakes, every word is true and meant to be read as it is written, and they number somewhere around 30 million in the US. The 'definitive word of Allah" is also hard to define for such a large group. Among other things, like Bush and Dickey Boy Cheney, you also leave out there is not one Islam, Sunnis and Shias believe different things, and the Sufis are very different than the other two....

More importantly, many people of faith believe their book of the divine is the ultimate word, a large percentage of Christians would tell you that the Bible is the book of God, Orthodox Jews would tell you that the Hebrew Scripture is the ultimate writing of God, the Catholic church would tell you that the Catholic Bible and church teaching are the 'true' word of God.....it is only more liberal religious thought the idea that there is more than one way to reach the divine, that their own faith is a window to focus but others have truth, too......

#5- Um, did you ever read the old testament? It has rules that are just as binding as the ones you cite in the Q'ran, that cover everything from animal husbandry to planting crops to what you wear, etc. Funny parts is, other then ultra orthodox Jews, no one follows them, they have been discarded, yet those people are Jewish and Christian....

You also leave out that there are a not small group of Christians called Christian Dominionists who want to do the same thing in the US, and they number about 25 million. And tell me, what do you think things like Sunday blue laws, sodomy laws (struck down in 2006), and same sex marriage bans are about? They are religious law enshrined in civic law and still exist, despite the ban on such things. We had forced school prayer until the late 1950's, our pledge of allegiance and currency have the word God in them, which in scale might be different, but in idea is the same thing.The GOP basically accepted the same idea as part of their party's operating platform, that we needed to bring conservative Christian religious belief as law...

#6- That is a strawman argument. According to Muslim tradition, one becomes muslim when you simply accept that Allah is the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet, that is how you convert (no baptisms, no lengthy classes)....that is you saying what it means to be Muslim, and on top of everything else, it implies there is something called 'true islam', that means you need to be extremist, and that is laughable. Sufi's for example would tell you that is not what it is about, the Sufis are mystics and belief the truth is found through mystic exploration. Sunnis and Shia believe different things. Muslims in the Phillipines tend to practice differently than Muslims in north Africa, so making that argument is simply a waste of words.

Are there people who believe such things in Islam? Well, Sunnis consider Shia to be wrong, Shia consider Sunni to be wrong, and they both hate the Sufis.

Plus if you would look around, you would realize there is the same thing in Christianity. According to evangelicals, anyone who doesn't read the Bible as literal fact reading the words is not Christian, which includes almost every mainstream Protestant church, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church claims that following church teaching makes one a real Catholic, yet other than in Africa, most Catholics are what are called "Cafeteria Catholics"..The church has quite extensive, rigid dogma that most Catholics accept as they will, are you saying that they aren't Catholic? If so, how come the Church hasn't kicked that 70% out? Orthodox Jews believe Hebrew Scripture is meant to be read that way, you live into these or you don't, yet most Jews don't follow that..are they not Jews?

You can make that claim about any faith, can show their own rules claim that, but in the end, it doesn't hold. The Leviticine code has things in it like if a child strikes its parent , it should be put to death; if a person wears the wrong clothing, they should be put to death, if he utters the name of God he should be put to death, and so forth, they are just as strict as the laws in the Qran, but would you argue all Jews and CHristians are extremists?

7)Moderate Muslims have the same opportunity to do what Christians do, and live their faith as they see fit, and they are still Muslim, the way cafeteria Catholics are still cathlic, liberal christians are Christian, and so forth. You are making decisions for other people, when they make decisions for themselves.


BTW, I am not arguing there are not troubling things in the Q'ran, there are, and like the Bible, it is hard to reconcile what the faith says and what it means. The words you cite may not have been said by Mohammed, since we don't know what he said, like Christ, he never wrote it down (he couldn't, he was illiterate), and it was written down 30 years later by someone else, so how much of that is Mohammend and how much is tribal bullshit we don't know. The Hebrew Scripture is full of stuff like in the Q'ran, like saying it was okay for Jews to kill the inhabitants of Jericho because they were the chosen people, there is a lot of things about killing people for trivial things, and it is apparent in the OT that the Jewish thought of the time looked down on anyone not Jewish. The Christians who had the bible preaching love often practiced horrific hate, and used the OT to justify it, and so forth.
Trying to speak for 1 billion people is a daunting task, when you don't know them, live with them and so forth. Are there hateful pieces of shit in Islam? Yes, there are, and they have done a lot of damage, and the Q'ran doesn't help when it can be used to fire up poor, angry people who feel like they have been shit upon, but then again, take a look at evangelical Christians in the US, what they are, and tell me they are no different, yet they are Christians but don't represent most Christians, either. It is very easy in any religion to justify hate and bad things.

I do think there are problems with Islam, one of the main problems is partially the US's fault, we have propped up the Saudis in power for almost 60 years, and it is the Saudi Royal family that maintains the Wahabbi version of Islam, and actively spread it throughout the world by setting up Madras that preach the extremist version of the faith, it is to a large part Saudi money financing Al Qaeda, and yet we have allowed this to go on because of oil. I work with Muslims from all over the world, and they are well aware of how fucked up the Saudis are and how the US has been cutting our own throat to keep oil flowing from there.

(in reply to MrBukani)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 9:12:58 AM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

I suppose I didn't specificly say this, but I never intended to imply I thought the USA was founded or in fact was a chirstian nation/gov't

I was just saying as many experts have said the intent of the line is clear, it was put there to assure that it was clear the treaty was between nations and not religions

that anti religious people choose to infer it means more than that, is ALSO hogwash

its also noteworthy that 10 years later when the treaty was ratified again that line was removed! I know it was 10 years later, but its also pretty much the same people in power 10 years later.

here is another interesting point, the treaty if we take it as the anti religion people like to take it says the country was not FOUNDED on christian principles, but it does not say that the ountry had not become a christian country

take for example a company named BSR, in ww2 it was started/founded as British Small Arms, then after the war stopped making guns and started making motorcycles, so just because it was founded as ONE thing, doesn't preclude it from BECOMING something entierly differant over a few year period

and AGAIN I am not saying the USA is or was or was ever intended to be a christian nation, just saying the treaty of tripoli proves nothing one way or the other!

its like comparing these two statements the man was shot by the shooter and the man stepped in front of the gun as he fired... both people viewed the same event, in both statments the man is dead, the only differance is perspective based on bias. one implies intent by the shooter, the other implies an accident...


It does prove something in that they put those words in an official government document whose meaning is clear. If the US was thought of as being a 'Christian nation" by the founders, they would not have written those lines, they would have said something to the effect that 'if the US is a Christian nation, that does not make Muslims our enemy" or some such. The idea that this just is saying it is between two governments is really stretching it, if they wished to say this they could have said "this is a treaty between the United States of America and the Caliphate of Tunisia" (or whatever it was); not to mention the obvious, that treaties negotiated by diplomats and ratified by the Senate and Presidency are functions of the government, it is implied that this is government to government, that is based in 1798 on many centuries of diplomatic protocol and international law. In that reality, there is no reason to make clear that this is between governments/nations, because many centuries of diplomatic and international law already make that clear. The only reason to have those words is for the very reason they were written (do some delving, there are writings from the time talking about it), that the Tunisians and such who were harassing our ships did so out of the notion that the US was a Christian nation and thus were hostile to their faith, and the treaty says we are not hostile to your faith because we are not a Christian nation. The right wing interpretation you are giving it is not what contemporary writers wrote about it, they said it was done to dispel the notion that the Tunisians had that the US was truly a "Christian" nation the way countries like Italy, Spain and France were (where religion and state are mixed), the logic saying that it is to show this is government to government not only is unneeded since by its very nature it is government to government, but rather to state in a legally binding documennt
that the US was not a Christian country, it was secular in terms of the government. Add this up with the first amendment, and it blows out the theocratic notions of things.

By 10 years later a lot of the players would have changed, 10 years was a lot of time back then, given lifespans. Adams was out of office, Jefferson was in the last year of his term as president, and many of those in the Senate were no longer the same people they were in 1798. I never said that the people in the US might have viewed themselves as Christian, I am saying that the government outright stated officially in that treaty that Christianity had nothing to do with our government. I think it is also interesting to note that in Europe, such a statement would be unheard of, since in most countries Church and State were entangled, it was assumed, and the only reason to put that in that treaty would be to differentiate the US from the European powers, which every one Church and State were tangled together by tradition and law. Claiming it is simply making it a declaration between governments is very much what conservatives do reading the bible, it is taking it out of the context of the times.


you are welcome to take it any way you like, interpret it as you like, what do I know, just because every single scholar who has ever spoken on the subject says what I tried to express doesn't mean anything! obviously you know better than all historians combined!

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 9:22:55 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

The level of ignorance in this thread qualifies many of you for a job on Fox News!

Obama isn't responsible for good or bad results in Egypt, we can play a bit around the edges but we cant shape outcomes.

Muslims civilized Europe during the crusades and were tolerant of both jews and,christians,until quite recently and have never committed the level of attrocities the west has.

The blame for modern radicalized muslims can be laid at the foot of the cia during Rayguns,era.







While I agree with your sentiments, you have to be careful about who you are talking about and the history of Islam. The Muslims you are talking about were the Ottoman Turks, and while they tended to be more tolerant of Christians and Jews then the Christians of europe were towards anyone else, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman empire were second class citizens, and they often paid heavy taxes for being who they were..compared to the Christians of the time, they were tolerant.

However, other Muslims were creating atrocities, in the first wave of Muslim expansion, it was often of the 'convert or be killed' variety of thing, it was not always so peaceful or civilized. Muslims moved into Europe earlier than the Crusades, one of the major stopping points was in the 8th century, where muslims expansion was stopped at the battle of Tours in 732.

In terms of civilizing Europe, it depends on what you mean. The renaissance in part was triggered by the re-discovery of old Greek and Roman knowledge, and this happened because of works coming back from the Ottoman Empire, plus in math and science the Ottoman empire flowered while the Christian west went into its dark ages (Algebra, various star names like Algol and such, are Arabic based, as I believe the world algorithm is arabic in origin. Despite all the claims about Irish monks saving civilization by copying old manuscripts (which is partly true, but also leaves out they destroyed 10 works for every one they saved, the 10 being 'pagan evil'), and it did help Europe recover, there is no doubt, plus Europeans would go to the Muslim world to study. In 1492, when dear old Isabella and Ferdinand took back Granada from the Moors, it was a place of scholarship and learning, Jews, Christian and Muslim scholars lived there, and when it fell it reverted back to being a typical European city of the late middle ages, all the learning and such going on their stopped, especially under the heel of the church and inquisition.

I think laying radicalized Islam at the feet of Reagan is kind of a half truth. Islam has been radicalizing a long time, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded back in the 1950's, for example. I would lay the radicalization on the post WWII world, which between the cold war, and the ominous stain of oil, left the region governed by despots protected by either the west or by the Soviet Uniion (Egypt, Syria), and it bred all kinds of discontent. The Saudi's, sensing what was going on, helped support the radicalization through their Wahabbi religion which in part was to prove to the radicals that they were good enough to control Mecca, and they also created radicalized schools/Madras that were built all over the Muslim world.

Where Reagan and the west fucked up was in Afghanistan, we supported the anti USSR factions but ignored who was doing the fighting, the Muhajeen were radical moslems from all over the Muslim world, and the US supplied and trained them in weapons and in explosives and you name it, and when the Russians pulled out, Bush 1 just left it...there were warnings all over the place that we were creating a corps of hardened fighters who hated the west, but those were ingnored...Al Qaeda came out of the Muhajeen, and the Taliban happened because the US left the Pakistan ISI to build a government..so yes, we didn't help.

Unlike some of the posters, I have friends who are Muslim, from varying places, who go back home and talk to people. In particular, a friend of mine is Persia (Iranian), and he is a really bright guy, he is not exactly a Muslim fanatic (far from it), and he said a lot of this is nationalism, that they see Islam as a hope, a way to build something and regain control of their own countries and stop outside meddling. He obviously knew this is a simplistic view of things, but he said that it drives so much, that in a sense, Islam was all they had that was their own, and that the whole "Sharia law" was in part because people see the corruption of their own lives in the governments that have been allowed to rule, often with outside help, and they think it will bring some justice into their lives, that Sharia law has elements in it that are supposed to stop the rich from using the poor, that is supposed to guarantee fairness and so forth, all of which have been lacking from their lives. The Q'ran can be used many ways, but when you live in a world that there is no hope for your children, where you feel everyone is against you, that outside forces are taking away your rights, it is easy to grasp at anything that gives hope. If you look at Christian Fundamentalists in this country, it is not surprising that a lot of them are not exactly from the economic boom part of those, many of them are rural, relatively ill educated, and not that well off, or if you look at the right wing militia movement, who are mobilizing to 'save their america', the thoughts aren't that much different, that they don't like the way the country is going, feel like isn't 'their' own country any more, that 'they' (liberals, bankers, new world order, whatever) have taken away their lives and hope, and they are ready to fight 'them' to get back what it 'theirs'.

After all, we have a lot of conservatives in the US who say if we just return to the society of the 1950's, where people went to church, families were all like Leave it to Beaver, women stayed home, kids played with their Davy Crockett hats, no gun control, gays were hiding in fear (or didn't exist, if you believe their view of history), and minorities knew their place, and "Jesus" was returned to the classrooms and courtrooms ("make Amercia a Christian Nation again"), the milk and honey will flow.....

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 9:31:36 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
Jews in europe and russia were first class citizens?

And no...i wasnt talking about turkey, there were jewish and christian cities and towns all over the ME.


(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 9:51:16 AM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

#5- Um, did you ever read the old testament? It has rules that are just as binding as the ones you cite in the Q'ran, that cover everything from animal husbandry to planting crops to what you wear, etc. Funny parts is, other then ultra orthodox Jews, no one follows them, they have been discarded, yet those people are Jewish and Christian....


lauren you seem to be a person who does alot of research. so I'll ask you to do us all a favor and help me/us with something

you mention the laws in other religions that justify killing for trivial reasons

so here is where I have a problem, while I will readily admit the bible has some pretty far out there rules, as far as I know they relate to specific acts or percieved crimes...

for instance you mention if a chld strikes a parent they should be put to death and the one about clothes...

but those killing are for specific percieved transgersions presumably commited by a "beleiver" of that religion. but in the koran, it says kill all non beleivers, it says it MANY MANY TIMES, not IF they do this or IF they do that, just KILL EM ALL!

see what I am getting at here, other religions require punisments for SPECIFIC ACTS they consider to be crimes, while islam says doesn't matter if they did something wrong or not, they should be killed just because they are not US!

and YESS there are instances in the bible where "god" said go ahead and kill those guys, but those were acts against SPECIFIC PEOPLE who were "in the way" not just PEOPLE EVERYWHERE

you mentioned jericho, but thats against a specific group of people that stood in the way of "god's plan" not everyone everywhere who just don't beleive

now I am not saying that makes it RIGHT, just saying its alot differant to say KILL these guys who happen to be on the land we want, from just kill everyone everywhere who don't agree with us!

so my request of you, is to show me/us a section or sections of the bible that says or even implies they should kill people, not becuse of a specific act or because they are a specific group that stands in the way, but says KILL ALL WHO DO NOT BELEIVE IN ME!

cause it says that over an over an over again in the koran, along with the SPECIFIC acts that people should be punished for

I do not practice any religion, my religion could be summed up in these three commandments

1) don't hurt ME
2) don't hurt YOU
3) have FUN

but I was raised catholic sent to cahtolic schools, and in 10 years of religion class every single day where the main focus was the bible, old and new testament, I do not remember any sections of the bible that said, kill anyone for the simple crime on NON BELEIF

< Message edited by BitYakin -- 7/14/2013 9:54:26 AM >

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 10:04:08 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
Christians have whipped out entire civilizations, enslaved entire continents, and in genersl have committed more evil than all other religions combined.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 7/14/2013 10:12:12 AM   
MrBukani


Posts: 1920
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline
2 I did noy say all indonesian muslims. I speak on a regular basis to an indonesian friend of mine. We supported an indonesian christian church for decades. I kinda know what goes on first hand.Most christians do not even dare to speak up because of muslim wrath.

3 It was Jemaah Islamiya who was convicted for the Bali bombing not al qaida. They might be related but if we are talkin courtfacts it was indonesian muslims.

4 I have little love for christians too or zionist torah thumpers. But there is a definite difference.
I was raised roman catholic and even the most fundamentalist who is truly educated will tell you inspired and that's a big difference to what the koran tells.

5 I read a lot more stories in the bible, not in the koran. I've read the verses about islamic divorce. They are very detailed. You read nothing that much detailed in the bible.

6 I have talked to many christians, jews and muslims. I still have to find one muslim who says the koran is not the direct word of allah. Can you please show me?

7 I am well aware the muslims like christians are very divided. That's the beauty of it.
Divide and conquer. I witness the double moral of muslims daily. Do not touch a muslim sister they will beat you down. The girls have to be virgins. But the muslim brothers sure love to fuck pretty blond girls.
That's what the wrath of god does to people.

Muslims love to talk about the oh so bad crusades, but tend to leave out 99 out of a hundred times they invaded Europe first. If you bounce a ball expect to get it back.
It's still the hottest topic in many cafés in Constantinopel(istanbul).
I'm here to set history straight cause even westerners these days claim the crusades were the worst, but seldomly they put it into the context of what really happened in those days.
And to this day that's propaganda to feed Islam. They should have learned from the mistakes of christians, instead they made it far worse.

Don't worry I'm the enemy of biblebelters with a vengeance for truth. Here in holland they are bringing back diseases like polio, the meazles and all those wretched child diseases. Because they do not want to protect their children. But here they are a real minority. Can't help it americans tend to be fanatics about their faith. Has to do with american supersize me culture.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.145