"They" don't hate our freedoms after all

[Black Dog]

Muslims do not hate America's freedoms, but its policies

The Bush administration, according to the defence science board, has misconceived a war on terrorism in the image of the cold war. However, the struggle is not the west versus Islam; while we blindly call this a "war on terrorism", Muslims "in contrast see a history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration" against "apostate" Arab regimes allied with the US and "western modernity - an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'war on terrorism'".

In this conflict, "wholly unlike the cold war", the Bush administration's impulse has been to "imitate the routines and bureaucratic ... mindset that so characterised that era". So the US projects Iraqis and other Arabs as people to be liberated, like those "oppressed by Soviet rule". And the US accepts authoritarian Arab regimes as allies against the "radical fighters". All this is nothing less than a gigantic "strategic mistake".

"There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-US groundswell among Muslim societies - except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the US so determinedly promotes and defends." Rhetoric about freedom is received as "no more than self-serving hypocrisy", highlighted daily by the US occupation in Iraq. "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom', but rather they hate our policies." The "dramatic narrative ... of the war on terrorism", Bush's grand storyline connecting all the dots from the World Trade Centre to Baghdad, has "borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars". As a result, jihadists have been able to transform them selves from marginal figures in the Muslim world into defenders against invasion, with a following of millions.

This is something many on the anti-war left have been saying pretty much since 9-11, yet the percepetion among the mainstream press and public is mired in the black/white rhetoric of Bush and the "war on terror". But this report, written by a taskforce of "military, diplomatic, academic and business experts, assigned to develop strategy for communications in the 'global war on terrorism'" shows that the lefties have had it right all along.

[Choke]

The US government knows what's really going on, but accentuating the negative doesn't win votes, as evidenced by Kerry's loss.

[Tawasakm]

Actually accentuating the negative can be a big vote winner. Provided you are managing to accentuate (or create) that which is negative about your opponent.

[Black Dog]

The US government knows what's really going on, but accentuating the negative doesn't win votes, as evidenced by Kerry's loss.

Actually, negative campaigning works. Which is why Bush pushed an agenda of fear: a Kerry win, according to the G.O.P rhetoric, would have turned the U.S. into a socialist republic run by the UN, with free commie health care, mandatory gay marriage and abortions for all and regular terrorist attacks.

[caesar]

yeah, sad but true. And people thought the Liberal's used fear. They were amateurs and more honest than the fear mongering utilized by Bush and the Republicans.

[Tawasakm]

Actually, negative campaigning works. Which is why Bush pushed an agenda of fear

Nor, unfortunately, are such tactics unique to the US. I think Howard has won the last two elections using the same methodology - using what I see as clearly fraudulent information in the election before this one.

[Choke]

I meant accentuating the negative concerning the current situation, not about what might happen, since that's so much speculation involved that you can't be accused of lying about it, you're just expressing an opinion.

[Argus]

The Bush administration, according to the defence science board, has misconceived a war on terrorism in the image of the cold war. However, the struggle is not the west versus Islam; while we blindly call this a "war on terrorism", Muslims "in contrast see a history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration" against "apostate" Arab regimes allied with the US and "western modernity - an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'war on terrorism'".

I wonder if you have paused to consider what this "history shaking movement of Islamic restoration" and a war against "western moderninity" means to those who don't yearn for the good old days of the seventh century. Or paused to consider that the "war against terrorism" only really got under way well after the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and violent fanaticism was raised through Saudi funding of tens of thousands of rigidly orthodox Islamic schools and mosques around the world. Doing largely nothing did not lead to peace and good will, but the buildup of larger and more organized Islamic terrorist movements capable of initiating attacks like 911, and searching for biological and chemical agents and means to use them on us.

And the so-called outrage at what the US is doing in Iraq seemed curiously - entirely - absent when Sadaam was slaughtering the people there, and also absent during the massive bloodletting between Iranians and Iraqis. And while I agree there seems no great groundswell of support for freedom, I find that more an indication of the primitivism of the Islamic world, where the hope and yearning is for Islamic theocracies rather than democracy. And frankly, I don't think a series of barbaric Islamic theocries taking hold in the world is at all in our best interests.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Or paused to consider that the "war against terrorism" only really got under way well after the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and violent fanaticism was raised through Saudi funding of tens of thousands of rigidly orthodox Islamic schools and mosques around the world

Indeed, the Saudis are the #1 threat regarding radical terrorism and fundamentalism. Yet they remain best friends with the US, even after perpetrating 9/11. It is a fine line for the US to walk, crushing 'terrorism with one hand, nuturing it with the other to gain cheap energy at home.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

Or paused to consider that the "war against terrorism" only really got under way well after the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and violent fanaticism was raised through Saudi funding of tens of thousands of rigidly orthodox Islamic schools and mosques around the world

Indeed, the Saudis are the #1 threat regarding radical terrorism and fundamentalism. Yet they remain best friends with the US, even after perpetrating 9/11. It is a fine line for the US to walk, crushing 'terrorism with one hand, nuturing it with the other to gain cheap energy at home.

Don't sneer at the concept of "cheap energy". Energy is the lifeblood of a modern nation. Increased energy prices result in damage to the economy, which ultimately when it causes unemployment and poverty, leads to statistically noticeably increases in deaths.

The US is indeed walking a fine line with the Saudis, needing their power and cooperation to help hold down energy prices, but at the same time trying to persuade them to stop funding all those Wahabi schools and mosques. I believe their actions in Iraq are in part designed to allow them to get tougher with the Saudis.

[shackwacky]

And the so-called outrage at what the US is doing in Iraq seemed curiously - entirely - absent when Sadaam was slaughtering the people there, and also absent during the massive bloodletting between Iranians and Iraqis. And while I agree there seems no great groundswell of support for freedom, I find that more an indication of the primitivism of the Islamic world, where the hope and yearning is for Islamic theocracies rather than democracy. And frankly, I don't think a series of barbaric Islamic theocries taking hold in the world is at all in our best interests.

This outrage was absent on the part of Americans as well. I have been trying to find indications of American sympathy or examples of their willingness to get involved in the Iraqui plight prior to GW. It is not easy. Maybe I will look up American intervention in the Iran-Iraq difficulties instead.

[Argus]

And the so-called outrage at what the US is doing in Iraq seemed curiously - entirely - absent when Sadaam was slaughtering the people there, and also absent during the massive bloodletting between Iranians and Iraqis. And while I agree there seems no great groundswell of support for freedom, I find that more an indication of the primitivism of the Islamic world, where the hope and yearning is for Islamic theocracies rather than democracy. And frankly, I don't think a series of barbaric Islamic theocries taking hold in the world is at all in our best interests.

This outrage was absent on the part of Americans as well. I have been trying to find indications of American sympathy or examples of their willingness to get involved in the Iraqui plight prior to GW. It is not easy. Maybe I will look up American intervention in the Iran-Iraq difficulties instead.

There was no such outrage at the bloodletting there. I agree. But that's not entirely relevent. There remains no great outrage now, so where's the difference?

On the other hand, the Muslim world ignored the murders, tortures and rapes, and continues to largely ignore them in Muslim nations. But it is full of rage if the Americans can be blamed? Why?

[Black Dog]

On the other hand, the Muslim world ignored the murders, tortures and rapes, and continues to largely ignore them in Muslim nations. But it is full of rage if the Americans can be blamed? Why?

Uh..because so many Muslims world wide live under regimes that, if tehyu spoke against the actions of other nominally Islamic regimes, they'd be silenced.

See, Argus, your whole argument is predicate don th ebeilef that the prevelance of despotic regimes in the Islamic world and the rise of religious radicalism are events that occurred in a vacumn. The reality is, as I've pointed out so many times before, religious extremism is a reaction to the opression and poverty inflicted by western-backed regimes. Not to mention that those who want to bring about Islamic theocracies remain in the minority. Most Muslims want pretty much the same things as the rest of us: freedom, stability and prosperity. But they've been betrayed by hundreds of years of colonialism.

As for the example of the Saudis funding terror schools, it doesn't take a genius to see that teh Sauds are trying to harness forces that would otherwise threaten their own hold on power. So instead, they formet hate against the west that would otehrwise be directed at them, even while they continue to rule with the blessing of the west.

[Argus]

On the other hand, the Muslim world ignored the murders, tortures and rapes, and continues to largely ignore them in Muslim nations. But it is full of rage if the Americans can be blamed? Why?

Uh..because so many Muslims world wide live under regimes that, if tehyu spoke against the actions of other nominally Islamic regimes, they'd be silenced.

Uhm, wait a second. Why would they be silenced for attacking other Muslim countries but not the US? I thought the US controlled all those regimes? I thought the US was the great uberpower lurking behind every despotic regime there. Surely it should be more dangerous to criticise the US.

See, Argus, your whole argument is predicate don th ebeilef that the prevelance of despotic regimes in the Islamic world and the rise of religious radicalism are events that occurred in a vacumn. The reality is, as I've pointed out so many times before, religious extremism is a reaction to the opression and poverty inflicted by western-backed regimes.

What kind of poverty do you think we inflicted on Saudi Arabia? Or the Gulf states? For that matter, why is the poverty in the likes of Syria or Iraq our fault when they had tons of oil money? We're to blame for oppression? How? Colonialism was a long time in the past. The people there today made their own decisions.

[Black Dog]

Uhm, wait a second. Why would they be silenced for attacking other Muslim countries but not the US? I thought the US controlled all those regimes? I thought the US was the great uberpower lurking behind every despotic regime there. Surely it should be more dangerous to criticise the US.

No. Criticsm of other regimes or their own hits too close to home. The U.S. is an easy target, a distraction (much the same way "the terrorists" are used here to distract from failing domestic policies). So these regimes have no problem taking money and arms from the U.S. with one hand and formenting antiwestern sentiment on the other. As for the U.S., they don't really care what these regimes say, so long as they do what their told.

What kind of poverty do you think we inflicted on Saudi Arabia? Or the Gulf states? For that matter, why is the poverty in the likes of Syria or Iraq our fault when they had tons of oil money? We're to blame for oppression? How? Colonialism was a long time in the past. The people there today made their own decisions.

The poverty of these nations' peoples (not the ruling classes you speak of) are the result of the policies engineered by the ruling classes who are the ones with close ties to western interests. So, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and others were all, at one time or another, client states of the west, who turned (and continue to turn) a blind eye to poverty and repression in exchange for access to resources, markets for arms etc.

It's really weird how your view of the Middle East completely disregards the historical record that puts today's situation in context. For instance, you argue "colonialism is dead", which while nominally correct in that the west is not actively conquering and ruling these nations (well: except Iraq), they are doing so, and have been doing so since the end of World War 1, by proxy. Why, even a short list of U.S. intervention in Mid East politics shows that colonialism, in its modern form, is alive and well.

*1947. Washington is displeased by Syria's government.A CIA-Army `political action team' mounts a coup, employing a `CIA asset,' Gen. Husni Za'im. As senior CIA Mideast agent Miles Copeland delightfully recalls, the Americans kept calling Za'im `our boy,' or `Husni,' and ordering him about. The day after Za'im's coup, Copeland and the American agents went to inform the new dictator whom he would appoint as ambassadors and cabinet ministers. When the Americans called him, `Husni,' Za'im ordered them to `stand at attention,' and address him as `Excellency.' US-Syrian relations have been terrible ever since. Two subsequent, US-backed coups backfired.

*1952. The US helps engineer a coup against British puppet ruler of Egypt, King Farouk. CIA backs a young colonel, Gammal Abdel Nasser. But when the US later tries to pressure Nasser into joining Washington's `new order' for the Mideast, the Baghdad Pact, Nasser rebels and becomesAmerica's enemy number one. CIA tries first to overthrow, than assassinate Nasser. All attempts fail.

*1953. Iran's popular, elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, attempts to assert Iranian control of his nation's oil industry, whose profits go to the US and Britain. A CIA coup overthrows Mossadegh, and puts `our boy' Reza Shah on the throne. Iran's US-trained secret police keep the Shah in power through a reign of terror. Islamic-nationalist revolution sweeps Iran in 1979, ending US domination.

*1957/58. US and Britain thwart popular uprisings against King Hussein of Jordan.

*1958. Washington installs a client regime in Lebanon, which then dutifully calls for US troops. Beginning of Lebanon's 35 years of instability and civil war. *1958. Britain's Iraqi puppets, King Faisal and Nuri as- Said, overthrown by the bloodthirsty Col.Kassim. US uses Kassim to attack Nasser. Kassim murdered by Col. Aref in CIA-mounted coup. Aref's helicopter blown up. A few more murders later, CIA helps engineer into power a promising, young, Baath Party enforcer, Saddam Hussein,

*1960. Anwar Sadat goes on CIA payroll. After Nasser's death, CIA puts Sadat into power in Egypt. Corrupt and hated, Sadat is assassinated to great popular joy..

*1969. The US elbows Britain out of Libya to gain control of its high-grade oil. CIA overthrows British puppet, King Idris, and - in one of its most brilliant moves - helps into power a young, reformist colonel, Muammar Khadaffi. When Khadaffi subsequently trumpets the Arabs are being robbed of their oil by the west, and raises prices, he goes unto America's hit list. *1976. US, Iran and Israel secretly arm Iraq's Kurds and promote their rebellion to destabilize Iraq. Kurdish revolt plays major role in igniting Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 in which one million died. US abandons Kurds, gets chummy with Baghdad.

*1980. Saddam Hussein becomes America's most important Mideast ally in trying to crush Iran's Islamic revolution. Urged on, armed and financed by the US, Saddam invades Iran in 1980. CIA and Pentagon supply military advice and intelligence on Iran. US and British intelligence help Iraq obtain its chemical and biological warfare capabilities.

*1983. US attempts to install a client, Christian/fascist regime in Lebanon, drive out Syrian influence. US Marines sent to Beirut, under cover of `peace-keepers.' They are bombed out of Lebanon by Shia militants: 309 Americans die, including CIA's top Mideast staff. *1985. CIA's revenge backfires. Lebanese CIA agents detonate truck bomb in Beirut in a failed attempt to assassinate Shia leader, Sheik Fadlallah. Eighty-three civilians killed, 240 wounded.

*1986. US tries to assassinate Khadaffi by bombing his residence in Tripoli. One baby daughter killed, one injured.He escapes. Downing of Pan Am and French UTA flights may be revenge for this failed hit. Three other attempt to assassinate Khadaffi, using CIA-organized Libyan exiles, fail.

*1996. The Bay of Camels - CIA's biggest flop since Cuba. , Urged on by President Clinton, CIA mounts an elaborate coup against Saddam Hussein. Iraqi exiles, armed and trained by CIA, to march on Baghdad from US/British ruled Kurdistan. CIA organizes a cabal of generals to assassinate Saddam. Public places in Baghdad are bombed, many civilians killed, in order to `destabilize' Iraq (this while the US is busydenouncing terrorism). But Saddam's spies have infiltrated the plot. The whole operation collapses. CIA's agent network in Iraq is rolled up. Many Kurds back Saddam, turn on pro-US Kurds. CIA agents in Kurdistan run for their lives, abandoning allies and tons of documents. Saddam is strengthened. CIA's inept Director, John Deutch, fired for this Mother of All Fiascos. .

link.