Why are we hated in the Arab World?

[Sprafa]

name - Abd al-Razzaq al-Lami - sex - M where - Sadr City, Baghdad date - 05-Dec-03 how - Crushed by tank

insurgents, are we ?

 

[babywax]

Target: US convoy?
Target: US military convoy
Target: possibly coalition HQ
Target: Al Karma Hotel or Australian embassy
Target: police chief or US military convoy
Target: US base and checkpoint

Lots more, I only went down the page a tiny bit.

 

[CptStern]

Lots more, I only went down the page a tiny bit.

Target: wedding party (air strikes)
Target: Dutch journalists, whose Iraqi driver and bodyguard were killed (gunfire)
Target: car carrying Japanese journalists and translator (rocket propelled grenade, car caught fire)
Target: home destroyed in fighting
Target: buses carrying Pakistani pilgrims (gunfire or bombs)
Target: 'insurgents' - three children and ABC TV cameraman among the dead
Target: detained 52-year-old ex-Baath official Nagem Sadoon Hatab (US Marines said to have 'snapped a bone in his throat,' and 'karate-kick[ed] Hatab in chest')
Target: scientist in US custody ('blunt force injury')

Lots more, I only went down the page a tiny bit

 

[babywax]

I thought the website only listed civilian deaths which resulted from U.S. mistakes?

 

[CptStern]

I thought the website only listed civilian deaths which resulted from U.S. mistakes?

no they list all deaths related to the invasion

 

[babywax]

That seems silly, you said earlier:

so there was 10,000 accidents during the war? 10,000 iraqi civilians killed by coalition forces....accidentily?

Lots of those weren't our doing.

 

[CptStern]

yes it was...if the US didnt invade they would still be alive

 

[babywax]

yes it was...if the US didnt invade they would still be alive

How can you say that? We didn't kill them.
There are so many events leading up to a person's death, how can you possibly hold people accountable?

If I hadn't taken a left that shortcut my wife wouldn't have died in a car crash.

EDIT:
Another one, that better demonstrates my point. And it's real too.
My dad had a friend once, he used to work with him, not really close. I can't remember the friend's name but I'll just call him Frank.
Frank was in a small car accident, nothing big, but he had some dents in his car as well as the lady who hit him. Well, he didn't want to get out of his car after they pulled over, she wanted him to get out and exchange insurance information. Finally, she persuaded him to get out. He gets out, and a drunk driver hits him and pins him against his car. He lives, but he is in a wheelchair the rest of his life. (He lated committed suicide)

You can't blame the lady for that, there's no way she could have known what happened would have happened.

 

[CptStern]

easy...they invade people die

no invasion = no deaths

 

[babywax]

No invasion, and Saddam is still in power. You're not going to dispute the fact that Saddam was killing people left and right are you? Not to mention his two sons.
No invasion = more deaths.

See my above post too, I edited it a little late.

 

[CptStern]

No invasion, and Saddam is still in power. You're not going to dispute the fact that Saddam was killing people left and right are you? Not to mention his two sons.
No invasion = more deaths.

See my above post too, I edited it a little late.

saddam would have to kill another 250,000 of his own people to catch up to the number killed by the two wars and 12 years of sanctions

 

[CptStern]

You can't blame the lady for that, there's no way she could have known what happened would have happened.

it's not the same scenario...the US knew what the price of invading iraq would be, they had a choice, just like they had a choice when they took responsibility for killing 500,000 iraqi women and children:

"When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."

 

[babywax]

it's not the same scenario...the US knew what the price of invading iraq would be, they had a choice, just like they had a choice when they took responsibility for killing 500,000 iraqi women and children:

Ahh, madeline albright, she's a stupid *****, she's the one that let the Rowanda Tutsi(sp?) massacre happen without sending any troops it to stop it.

I thought we were talking about the current war in Iraq, not the first?

saddam would have to kill another 250,000 of his own people to catch up to the number killed by the two wars and 12 years of sanctions

Some estimates of the amount of people he has killed go over 2 million.

And by the way, those sanctions weren't imposed by the U.S. alone, they were put in place by the U.N.

 

[CptStern]

Ahh, madeline albright, she's a stupid *****, she's the one that let the Rowanda Tutsi(sp?) massacre happen without sending any troops it to stop it.

I thought we were talking about the current war in Iraq, not the first?



Some estimates of the amount of people he has killed go over 2 million.

And by the way, those sanctions weren't imposed by the U.S. alone, they were put in place by the U.N.

please everyone knows it was the US that pressured the UN.

saddam didnt kill 2 million of his own. That number is highly inflated and includes 500,000 iranians killed during the iraq-iran war...some estimates are between 150 K and 250 K

it's funny how you slam albright for not intervening in Rwanda, yet make no mention of her cold statement that 500,000 dead iraqi children was "worth it"

 

[Lil' Timmy]

lol sprafa.. when did i say that line in your sig. i remeber typing it, but i can't recall the context.

stern, baby.. why don't you guys try getting back on-topic?

 

[babywax]

Saddam didn't disarm. It was entirely his fault, he had shown he couldn't handle the power and he was a tyrannical dictator, no matter what the cost you HAVE to stand up for what is right. You can't let someone kill and kill and then allow him to KEEP his weapons, it just doesn't work like that. You can't let evil people stay in power, you can't give an inch to them. Look at what Neville Chamberlain did in WW2, appeasing Hitler and Mussolini to try to avoid the war. I don't think that worked well.
The sanctions however were NOT the right way to do it, Saddam needed to be taken out of power and that's what the U.S. is trying (succeeded) to correct.

 

[babywax]

Want to just stop arguing? I don't think we're going to convince eachother of anything, plus I'm getting tired of typing

 

[[Matt]]

One thing you people shouldnt do and what the vast majority of muslims do not do is take the koran word for word as Islamic law. Islam IS a religion of peace and freedom but its unfortunate that a tiny minority of muslims DO treat thier holy book in such a way that they can twist the meaning of certain passages for thier own gain. One reason why this minority act in such an extreme manner is that much of the Islamic world rightfully feels that the western world has cheated them by taking away palastine from the arabs and giving it to the jews. If you want to know more on this issue then do a google search for 'the balfour declaration'

If every christian were to take the bible word for word then we would all be living in the dark ages. There are passages in the bible that advocate Slavery, the oppression of women and even incest!

 

[CptStern]

Saddam didn't disarm. It was entirely his fault, he had shown he couldn't handle the power and he was a tyrannical dictator, no matter what the cost you HAVE to stand up for what is right. You can't let someone kill and kill and then allow him to KEEP his weapons, it just doesn't work like that. You can't let evil people stay in power, you can't give an inch to them. Look at what Neville Chamberlain did in WW2, appeasing Hitler and Mussolini to try to avoid the war. I don't think that worked well.
The sanctions however were NOT the right way to do it, Saddam needed to be taken out of power and that's what the U.S. is trying (succeeded) to correct.

yes but they were saddam's allies when he was at his worst...it didnt seem to bother them then

sure I can leave this issue behind if you'd like...I too tire of rehashing the same points over and over...there's gotta be 10 threads where I say the same sort of thing

 

[Gunner]

Islam IS a religion of peace and freedom.

Refer to my previous post:

Islam is a religion of peace! of fluffy pink bunnies and fruity ass candy and magic wonderful rainbows!!

LOL!

 

[Pogrom]

Hypothetical situation:
You're living in Canada and your house is bombed accidentally by the U.S. in a training operation, just like that thing that happened a while back. What do you do?
By your rationale you strap a bomb on your back and detonate yourself in the Whitehouse.

Your argument doesn't hold water, because the situations in Canada and the Middle East are so different.

1) Canadians have the infrastructure in place to seek redress. They can complain to their government, who can complain to the UN or directly to the US.

2) An innocent Iraqi civilian has nowhere to turn. He has no higher authority to complain to. He has no way of seeking compensation except for the vengeance of terrorism.

 

[Tr0n]

OT: Pogrom your sig is intresting. The 1st Bush warned of this happening....but his stubborn son didn't listen.Also in war both sides lose....there is no such thing as winning or losing.

 

[Tr0n]

Damn typos....I mean to say is...Once you declare war, you have already lost.

 

[babywax]

2) An innocent Iraqi civilian has nowhere to turn. He has no higher authority to complain to. He has no way of seeking compensation except for the vengeance of terrorism.

That's what we're there to put in place.

 

[DreamThrall]

It amuses me how many people on this post are experts on the Arab world and the religion of Islam.

The only person that I noticed that has a semblance of a clue was Warbie... but then, what do I know... I'm not an Arab.

 

[Gunner]

It amuses me how many people on this post are experts on the Arab world and the religion of Islam.

The only person that I noticed that has a semblance of a clue was Warbie... but then, what do I know... I'm not an Arab.

AMAGAWD have you heard of books? or documentaries? television? the media? the news?

 

[Cybernoid]

No, I haven't but that doesn't mean one can't get a relatively objective view.
I went to an international college so I did get to meet people from the Middle East. I live in a very Muslim area of London, so I've mingled more than a little with the "Arab world" (and yes Muslims everywhere count). I'm not saying I'm completely right, I'm not ignoring that many countries in the Middle East are oppressive and have terrible human rights records (although many Western countries also are on Amnesty's blacklist) I'm just saying that the simplicity people found in providing "them vs. us" answers without allowing for the possibility that it might be slightly more complex than that was sad. Some of them were borderline racist.

That doesn't give you any kind of view into the middle-east, which is not the same thing as a muslim student in the western world.

That's terrible, no one denies this. Does this mean all Arabs hate us? of course not. The events that took place under Taliban rule in Afghanistan were undeniably wrong also but, as el Chi pointed out, not representative. Attrocities like this aren't unique to Muslims, they're unique to humans.

To my understanding, what I described is almost standard practise in the middle-east.

I already said, we've made Cruzades agaisnt the Arabs, I say they have every right to make a Jihad agaisnt us.

And the crusades occured... almost a millenia ago?

but look at turkey now... that's one of the most progressive countries in the world i'd have to say. although countless people will try to make you believe otherwise...

What are you smoking? Turkey wouldn't know what progressive is even progressive danced naked on the roof and waved a flag that says "progressive."

Hmm, I wonder how good their health care was under Saddam? I wonder if they bothered to get a count of the deaths due to these causes under Saddam, and then did the math.

From what I've read, Iraq was much better off during Saddam.

 

[Edcrab]

I guess that's the problem; what's actually true? What's sensationalist junk aimed at provoking a reaction of any sort?

The thing about Islam is that, like Christianity and the Bible, there are plenty of interpretations of the Qu'ran. That's a point which goes unnoticed by many, but there are a variety of beliefs focusing on the core values of Islam, and as mentioned a great point of debate rests on the so-called sixth pillar.

The concept of "Jihad" has long been disputed, often due to arguments as to its original context. Some nations/organisations have literally rewritten the Qu'ran to support their actions; altered copies of the holy book have purportedly been found in places ranging from Afghanistan farming settlements to Iraqi homes.
In the version of the Qu’ran that I read, Jihad is made out as a purely defensive aspect of the religion; protecting Islam from obliteration or lesser hostilities. There, in fact, lies a further problem; some people are clearly interpreting that fairly mild statement to mean violence is justified in whichever situation they choose.

Terrorists are destructive to everyone involved, and yet removing them is difficult. The heavy bombing of Afghanistan would have been better replaced by earlier initiated air and ground expeditions. Back in the Troubles, it could be likened to England blowing the hell out of Ireland due to the actions of the IRA. Palestinian extremists undermine any approach to peace by actively seeking out civilian targets; Israel makes mistakes (and I use that term liberally in regards to their somewhat suspicious approach to military actions as whole) but the extremists killed a busload of thirty civilians literally two hours after Israel grudgingly bowed to international pressure and began to dismantle part of their controversial wall to reposition it. That is not going to improve anyone’s opinion or put sympathy in even the most empathic heart.

So I wouldn’t say that every Arab “hates us”, but perhaps the governing powers of particular Arabic states do. The west has a history of conflict with the middle east ranging back to the Crusades, and we clash on all manner of matters; human rights, decadence, industry… it seems we can’t forget the past because a Crusade of a different kind is now occurring.

 

[Sprafa]

And the crusades occured... almost a millenia ago?

So, because it was a long time ago, they're supposed to forgive us and move along?

It left a major mark in their society, it's like the entire American continent to forget they were ever dominated by Europe....

 

[Pogrom]

That's what we're there to put in place.

So you agree that your argument was null and void?

So the relatives of the innocent people being killed are justified in their use of action?

 

[babywax]

No. We're there to provide a democracy. They have absolutely no justification for using any violence against us, whatsoever. They have a REASON, but no justification.

edit:

From what I've read, Iraq was much better off during Saddam.

As long as you weren't on the Olympic team

 

[Pogrom]

No. We're there to provide a democracy. They have absolutely no justification for using any violence against us, whatsoever. They have a REASON, but no justification.

Seeing the US's poor history of nation building and installing democracy, that seems a weak argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying:

1) The US funded radical anti-democracy groups in the middle east
2) The US supported Saddam Hussein during the killing of the Kurds
3) US and UN sanctions killed millions, an action that the then Secretary of State described as "Justified
4) The US killed thousands of innocent bystanders during the overthrow of Saddam
5) The US supported Israel during the illegal in inhumane actions against the Palestinians.

"All the above are reasons for the extremists to take action, but they are not justified now, because we're giving them democracy!!!"

 

[babywax]

Poor history installing democracy? Are you talking about in the middle east? I hope so.
Japan and Germany were both set up after world war 2 almost exclusively by the U.S.

3) US and UN sanctions killed millions, an action that the then Secretary of State described as "Justified

Saddam had to disarm. We should have attacked him then instead of doing those stupid sanctions, but for some stupid reason we didn't.

1) The US funded radical anti-democracy groups in the middle east

Another stupid move, but the reasoning was that they would take Saddam out of power and then we could use them to set up a democracy.

4) The US killed thousands of innocent bystanders during the overthrow of Saddam

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands (going by the previous poster's estimates to be fair).

"All the above are reasons for the extremists to take action, but they are not justified now, because we're giving them democracy!!!"

They aren't justified now, and they never were.

 

[Pogrom]

Poor history installing democracy? Are you talking about in the middle east? I hope so.
Japan and Germany were both set up after world war 2 almost exclusively by the U.S.

Of the 13 nations that the US has attempted to install democracy, only 2 have been successes - Germany and Japan.

That is a success rate of roughly 15%. I'd call that a poor history.

Here is a link to a case study of seven of the thirteen nations. Makes for some interesting reading.

Saddam had to disarm. We should have attacked him then instead of doing those stupid sanctions, but for some stupid reason we didn't.
Another stupid move, but the reasoning was that they would take Saddam out of power and then we could use them to set up a democracy.
Saddam killed hundreds of thousands (going by the previous poster's estimates to be fair).

They aren't justified now, and they never were.

How are they not justified? The West seems to see the use of force as justified, even when they are not 'installing democracy'. Why can the west use force and the middle east not?

 

[DreamThrall]

AMAGAWD have you heard of books? or documentaries? television? the media? the news?

You can watch as many documentaries and read as many books as you like, but you still won't get the one thing you really need:

Perspective.

Living in a 3rd world country has got to give someone a perception of the rest of the world that we, living in "the west", couldn't possibly understand. I'm willing to bet that THIS is one of the reasons why they hate us:

Arrogance.

We assume that if we watch enough FOX news, or enough History Channel documentaries, we will know everything about their culture and history.

 

[babywax]

How are they not justified? The West seems to see the use of force as justified, even when they are not 'installing democracy'. Why can the west use force and the middle east not?

First of all, we're a democracy. We're not a single person who decides he doesn't like a country and then joins a terrorist cell with a bunch of other people who decided the same way. We rule by majority, or in this case the president ruled with help from lots of advisors and information from one of the world's top intelligence agencies.
Second: WE ARE NOT TARGETTING CIVILIANS. Do you understand that? We target only the people who hold guns, we do not organize to attack CIVILIANS. Mistakes happen some times.
Once the middle east has an actual government set up (and not a dictatorship like Saddam's) then they can actually make informed decisions on when and when not to use force.

 

[CptStern]

sigh .....7,350 civilian deaths in little more than a month is a lot of mistakes. If the US was cautious about killing civilians they wouldnt use weapons such a cluster bombs (against geneva conventions) or use saturation/carpet bombing

 

[Gunner]

You can watch as many documentaries and read as many books as you like, but you still won't get the one thing you really need:

Perspective.

I've lived in the middle east for fourteen years, want to hear what's my "perspective"? **** the middle east. ****'em all.

 

[Devilphish]

"The right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as 'the right to enslave.'

"Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent 'rights' of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses."

-Ayn Rand

 

[CptStern]

Ayn rand is an author of fiction, she has no more weight in her words than I do