One of the biggest misconceptions people seem to have is the reason that fundamentalist muslim terrorists act against America. The BushCheney regime has successfully brainwashed their followers into believing that they do so because they "hate our freedom," or are otherwise jealous of us because we have a lot of cool stuff. Wrong.
They do it because the west (us and other countries, too) have been messing with the middle east for centuries. Ever heard of the crusades? Wars have raged back and forth between east and west for a long, long time. The main reasons that, for example, Al Qaida has it in for us include A) we support Israel and B) we have troops, etc., in Saudi Arabia (their turf).
As a culture, they do not envy our freedom (fundamentalist muslims do not value the vice and decadence which goes along with it), or our stuff (they can get their own stuff if they want too, and since a lot of that stuff is made from petroleum products, they make money off of our consumption of said stuff, anyway).
I happen to like the way it is addressed in this article: Why Do they Hate Us?. If terrorists are our enemy, then it is important to remember one of the fundamental rules of war: You must understand your enemy in order to win against them. And obviously, those who are in charge of our current "war against terrorism" either don't understand their enemy, or they are lying to us all about what they are trying to achieve by invading the middle east.
Which do you prefer: Ignorance or Deception?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's funny but every time I've read a statement from Osama it has been very clear what his gripes and aims are. He wants us out of Saudi Arabia and he wants us to quit supporting the oppressive policies of Israel in Palestine.
No where do I remember his stating that he hates us because we are free, or saying he wants us to convert to islam or die.
People in this country need to learn how to assess arguments for their validity, Que no?
Oh, we have a long history of ignorance in this country, so I choose ignorance.
Not trying to start an argument here, just looking for some open, free-form dialogue.
First of all, all governments are corrupt, because human beings are corruptible. Get rid of the human beings and you'd have a perfect, utopian society . . . but . . . without anyone in it. :)
So, since we're stuck with government in one form or another, it then becomes our choice to decide which government to choose - in essence, it becomes the "lesser of two evils" senario.
To break it down into "we're clearly right" and "they're clearly wrong" is not only ignorant, but absurd.
Mistakes have been made on both sides. For instance, we helped create the governments of both Iraq and Iran and we even gave aid to Osama early on. Stupid us.
Is it naive, probably, but I would like think that our government wouldn't willingly, knowingly, and unabashedly set out to screw things up in the Middle East.
I would much rather believe that what were dealing with is what we've always dealt with in this country - isolationism.
Was it the Monroe Doctrine? Hmmmm. Can't remember now. Anyway, one of those documents effectively stated that we would stay out of the affairs of Europe's side of the globe, so long as they stayed out of our affairs.
Was that a good policy? Sure, but it shouldn't have meant that we become ignorant of the policies, practices and functionings of the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, that seems to be ingrained in us however. If the world is going to hell, so long as it doesn't affect us, we easily turn a blind eye. As soon as our ships get sunk or our wallets start feeling the pinch, well, by-dern, it's war.
Then again, that's how most wars have been fought. No one wants to go to war. You only go to war for a reason, not simply because you can.
In America's case, we tend to believe that the rest of the world thinks like us. This goes back to what I've already mentioned. That's why we've failed so horribly in places like Korea, Vietnam, Mogadishu and the Middle East.
World War II was fought against and with people that we had already had dealings with. Our own culture stemmed from the mother countries of Germany, France, England and Italy. We understood how they thought, because we were them and they were us.
We were not born out of the Middle East. We were not born out of Asia, we have no way of grasping the intricacies of those cultures, and so we fumble and flop along in our (I believe) genuine attempts to make the world a better place.
Again, do we have ulterior motives? Absolutely, what nation doesn't? Regardless, the idealist in me would like to believe that those in power in this nation still want "the greater good" for our country and for the rest of the world.
As for Osama's requests . . . we're made to bow and scrap before the U.N. before we take military action. Why wasn't Osama made to do so before he had 3 planes hijacked?
Why should we be the only ones to hold to a code of morality, when it's plainly obvious that our enemy doesn't?
So he wants us out of Saudia Arabia. Why? Do the Saudis want us out of Saudi Arabia? He wants us to stop supporting Israel? Why? Do the Israelis not want our support?
Again, this is where it becomes "tough" to be a leader. Which policy do you adopt? Do you adopt the policy that might bring peace and stability to a region, despite the fact that a few thousand might die in the process? Or do you shirk responsibility and slam a few planes into some buildings, blow up some cars and take out as many civilians as possible?
Am I saying that our culture is some how more "kosher" than the culture of Islam? No, but is it right that women are beaten for not wearing head scarves, that men are killed for looking at women inappropiately and countless other are tortured, killed and raped for speaking out against the government?
Who are we to judge what's right and wrong, you ask. Well then, for that matter what right does anyone have to judge what's right and wrong? Or take it one step further - where do our ideas of right and wrong even come from? Two arguments arise - our ideas are based upon a form of absolute Truth that we all have -whether that be through ancestral experience or innate knowledge of a Higher Being or they've simply developed as a result of societal structures and strictures.
If the latter is the case, then it's simply subjective bias, based upon "might makes right". If the first is true, then we are truly obligated to do what we feel to be just and right.
Depends on which side of the fence you reside.
Hello Anonymous, thank you for commenting and offering some great insights. Bear with me while I stroll down the paragraphs :) And forgive me if I rant.
Back in the 80's I phrased the question about "ignorance vs deception" as "stupidity vs evil", and I ultimately decided a stupid president was better than an evil one. Luckily, we're no longer faced with that choice... we can have both. But yes, I have almost always been faced with the lesser of two evils choice in my adult voting life.
I like to think that an incorrupt government is possible, but I admit that's pretty idealistic. In reality, it's a game-like challenge to try to see how close you can get to achieving that perfection. I don't mean to belittle it with that comparison; it's just a real struggle with a lot at stake. In any case, I certainly would like to have a government that is less corrupt than we have now.
I also believe that morality is subjective, so I agree that it is folly to say "we're clearly right" and "they're clearly wrong". My main point in this post is that so many people are bombarded with propaganda that paints an inaccurate picture. I believe one man's "terrorist insurgent" is another man's "patriot" fighting for their homeland. And I think it would benefit us all if more people considered that. This notion that terrorists are just a bunch of "bad guys" who want to do bad things just because they're bad and they're against "goodness" is so ridiculous that one would think only the most fundamental minds would be satisfied with it, yet millions are. The truth is, we have a long history of doing awful things to them in order to control them and take their stuff. It's no wonder they feel the way they do! And the word "terrorist"... wouldn't that be someone who tries to manipulate public opinion by making them so terrified of attack that they would rather concede to your demands than risk the attack? That describes our side in this war, and it's shameful.
You are right that we created horrors in those countries. But what Bush & Co (notice I do not assign their actions to the US government) is doing in the middle east, simply put, is take over. Not screw things up, but secure their resources for themselves. Energy is the last great treasure on earth, and those who control it wield ultimate power.
I wouldn't call it isolationist, because the US meddles in others' affairs but doesn't allow anyone to meddle in its own. That's too one-sided for isolationism, to me, so I would call it something else. Schoolyard bullyism maybe?
Also, here is one of my less popular opinions: people actually so like to go to war. I've known far too many people who do, and it's depressing. But some love to fight the wars, and even more love to watch. Bread and circuses.
One thing I must respectfully take issue with you on is the idea that "we're made to bow and scrap before the U.N. before we take military action." I honestly do not believe that is the case. It's not "bowing and scraping." What happens is, a member of the UN can ask for their assistance in a military action. If the other members consent, then those countries can act together, as allies. They can also agree to condemn and sanction a country who commits international crimes or atrocities. With regards to Iraq, both Bush Sr (Panama) and Bush Jr (Iraq) told the UN they were going to attack, invade and overthrow a sovereign nation whether the UN agreed or not. Both the Panama and Iraq actions were condemned by the UN, and I remember the hypocrisy of Bush Sr. saying that the UN had no right to tell any sovereign nation (meaning us) what to do, then condemning any nation that didn't bow to the UN. So, it is the US under Bush that insists on UN control, while hypocritically chastising others who would respect UN sanctions.
As you say, Osama Bin Laden is a bad guy. Again, the Iraq war is the Bush regime's smokescreen for imperialism and they couldn't care less about him -- he probably works for them, anyway.
You're right that fundamentalist Islam is oppressive. I have oppression, too! But why waste so many lives to replace an Islamic Taliban with a Christian Taliban? Here's an idea that would work, but would not make as much money for the Bushes, the Carlyle group, PNAC, etc.: Leave the middle east alone and simply do business with them. Trade for their oil instead of invade for it. But oh, wait... that would be capitalism! And like it or not, the Bushes etc. prefer fascist imperialism.
Again, thanks for the comments, thanks for listening, and please come back anytime :)
Post a Comment