board77

America was traditionally a friend of the Middle East. For example, Eisenhower was highly regarded after he mediated the Suez crisis, and the US was seen as protecting the Middle East from British and French imperialism. The deterioration of relations was a gradual process, and putting the blame entirely, or even mostly, on America’s shoulders is silly. Likewise, the rise of fundamentalism was the result of many different factors.

I don't think people are reading very carefully. I said US actions have made it more likely for the reaction to get out of hand. I never said they were the root cause, or the only ones to blame.

Iavas_Saar wrote:

Quote:

the current uproar has nothing to do with the United States.

Actually, I think it has a lot to do with the US (their actions over the last few years). They have created the climate where this sort of thing is more liable to get out of hand.

If you mean by this- a climate where people are allowed to express their opinion, in agreement or disagreement with something, the freedom to do so, even to some extent the defended right to do so... then I agree with you.

But that right, that freedom, that climate does not give way to the action of destroying, rioting, burning,or even screaming for murder or blood publicly. There are laws against this- even in the middle east.

Quote:

If you mean by this- a climate where people are allowed to express their opinion, in agreement or disagreement with something, the freedom to do so, even to some extent the defended right to do so... then I agree with you.

This has nothing to do with my point, but..

You think freedom of speech is all that is should be in the US? Well, I have some free-speech zones to sell you..
What about freedom of the press? The US ranks as one of the lowest out of the 'free' nations.
What about government transparency?

Quote:

But that right, that freedom, that climate does not give way to the action of destroying, rioting, burning,or even screaming for murder or blood publicly. There are laws against this- even in the middle east.

I suppose the fact that most of those things have been done to them recently makes no difference.. the climate I talked of is a climate of growing tension due to the 'righteous' bullying and reckless aggression from you-know-who.

Certainly the actions of the rioters do not exist in a vacuum. The actions of the US have undoubtedly influenced the mindsets of these people. But are they seeing the actions of the US accurately? Or are they being given heavily slanted versions of the truth by power hungry leaders that have no moral qualms over whipping their followers into a violent destructive frenzy?

If the latter, I doubt US influence would matter even if the US was the most morally praiseworthy nation ever to exist.

Imagine if your were taught that your people, your culture, your religion was the best in the world. In school, you were reminded of a time when your nation was the richest and most advanced of any part of the world.

Then you look around you and see poverty, huge disparities in wealth, political and economic corruption, and you see your nation wallowing along like a third world nation for most citizens.

How do you justify or rationalize the incongruity of it all?

Easy --- you accept the stuff about you being the best and blame most of the rest on somebody else. That is the tried and true way that human deal with such things.

If your culture and religion claim that you really are the best, its easy pickings to aim at the target of the nation which really is the richest and seems to attract the most attention.

"Nobody cheers for Goloiath". Wilt Chamberlain.

Iavas-
I was purposely taking your use of ‘climate’ out of it’s context, and using it in an ironic way to say gently I have to disagree with you It may be that it has nothing to do with your point but VERY MUCH has to do with the issue at hand.
I speak of a climate that allows a person to express their opinions positive or negative- a climate which is not present in some middle eastern countries where criticism of Islam is not allowed, and in this case, any picture of Mohammed is considered a blasphemy (only one of many issues in the cultural divide)...one which though the militant individuals living in the west enjoy the ‘freedom’ of it, still despise it for all its ‘evils’, though it does not stop them from taking advantage of it none the less...

I was not specifically thinking of or referring to the US (though you were, and I didn't say that very clearly I'm afraid- I am not very good at debate rhetoric ... )... and wasn't trying to make a statement about whether freedom of speech or freedom of expression are all they are meant to be, (a point which I happen to agree with you, though perhaps not for the same reasons).

It does not help to ‘blame’ someone else for one’s own problems. Pointing fingers and accusing who is the ‘bully’ and /or the cause of the problem is a nice way to avoid taking on one’s own responsibilities for the issues. And not allowing for criticism of one’s attitudes and actions while one can freely criticise others is a blatant double standard.

Iavas... I have lived in the middle east, have friends there, you don't need to tell me about the things that have been 'done to them'. They have done a good bit of their own 'bullying' as well. Even so, my point is- it does not give them the right to burn embassies, destroy property, etc...

Hoodlums did this in Switzerland about two years ago, vandalizing, breaking storefront windows, destroying cars... because they didn't agree with what was going on at the World Economic Forum being held there... and there were no 'passive spectators'. Those who were caught were arrested and prosecuted.

sauronsfinger wrote:

Imagine if your were taught that your people, your culture, your religion was the best in the world. In school, you were reminded of a time when your nation was the richest and most advanced of any part of the world.

Then you look around you and see poverty, huge disparities in wealth, political and economic corruption, and you see your nation wallowing along like a third world nation for most citizens.

How do you justify or rationalize the incongruity of it all?

Easy --- you accept the stuff about you being the best and blame most of the rest on somebody else. That is the tried and true way that human deal with such things.

I'm guessing you're aware of the dual applicability of this explanation? The middle-east is already there and the US is well on its way, with each blaming the other for its decline...

Dave
yes, as I typed part of that it did occur to me that it could also be applied to the USA ...

I guess the difference is the MOST would be changed to SOME in describing the poverty of citizens

you have good reading skills...

You know what's funny, I thought sf was talking about the US when I first started to read his post.

So did I.

sauronsfinger wrote:

I guess the difference is the MOST would be changed to SOME in describing the poverty of citizens

Right. We're not as wealthy or (I believe) as free as we used to be, but I'm happy to say we're still doing a good deal better than your average middle-eastern theocracy.

LM is right about our prior relations with the Mid East. France and England were seen in a bad light due to their colonial attempts, and the United States were seen as the major power that didn't interfere.

What started the bad relations with the US and the ME was when the US backed the removal of the Prime Minister of Iran in favor of the Shah. Now there was a pretty nasty dictator. Of course, intervention begets intervention, though the United States had the cold war as an excuse for most of the meddling.

Eventually it led the US to propping up dictators we liked, squashing dictators we didn't like. Case in point, propping up Saddam so that Iraq could be a check against Iran, then squashing Saddam so that he couldn't threaten Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

Then there's Israel.

Two more interesting articles-
It seems something has been burned in Lebanon too.

here
The statement:

Quote:

In Beirut, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah urged Muslims worldwide to keep demonstrating until there is an apology over the drawings and Europe passes laws forbidding insults to the prophet.

is quite disturbing and revealing.


And then this is a rather 'critical' look

here

Well I do not see anybody outside of Muslim dominated nations passing laws against cartoons or insults to the prophet. If that is the key demand, looks like a clash of cultures and values at a minimum.

Looks like neocon/zionist links are emerging after all..

EUROPEAN MEDIA PROVOKES MUSLIMS TO INFLAME ZIONIST "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS"

Quote:

Rose* traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares "militant Islam" with fascism and communism.

Quote:

Rose told the international paper owned by The New York Times that "he would not publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as 'racist.'"

*Flemming Rose, the culteral editor of Jyllands-Posten who commissioned the cartoons.

Here is an article on Pipes:

[url=http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=27615]â€

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

You know what's funny, I thought sf was talking about the US when I first started to read his post.

Same here. Haha.

Quote:

who compares "militant Islam" with fascism and communism.

Not communism really, but the comparisons to fascism are close.

Quote:

"he would not publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as 'racist.'"

That's kind of funny, but isn't making a point-- except a false one that Sharon is a baby strangler. If someone made a cartoon showing Bush sodomizing muslim women, I'd be against it for the fact that the point it makes is not real or even valid.

Quote:

Looks like neocon/zionist links are emerging after all..

Where would that be? All I see is an opinion piece by someone right in line with your usual sources, thinking Bush and Israel are in a footrace to see who is more evil and all are out to purposefully begin WWIII. So what if Rose visited Pipes to write a piece a year and a half ago? So what if the man compares militant Islam to communism and facism? You think it's not? You think the goals and methods of militant Islam are honorable? So what if the Prime Minister won't apologize? Could it be that he just doesn't feel he should apologize for something he had no control over? No, according to the bastion of objectivity you referrenced, he must hate Muslims and be in on a plot to inflame them...because he won't apologize for something he didn't do. Do prime ministers and presidents ever apologize for the actions of private entities?

To inflame the Muslim world, really this would be a piss poor method. Wouldn't something a little more drastic than these cartoons be a better way to reach the goal? Make no mistake, this will settle down and things will return to normal, and oh gosh, golly, gee, the Neocon's big plan will have failed. Bush and his co-conspirators/puppetmasters are supposed to have this vast power to manipulate and cover up and threaten and destroy. But they seem to have a real nincompoop in charge of planning.

Quote:

But they seem to have a real nincompoop in charge of planning.

Well, they can't be *that* bad, it's all worked perfectly on you.

Yes, things will get back to normal in no time - the US will attack another muslim country under false pretenses, and all will be well with the world.