I did provide them. I cited three articles from the Arab News, and one from the Islamic Republic Daily. I’ve read lots more than that, but those were the four I could find with a short search.
And I DID say that I was aware that these attitudes were still in the minority, but the difference was that they were uttered rarely before, if at all. As far as I can tell, the numbers of articles like this are still growing.
And yes, Collounsbury did declare my sources to be garbage (despite not knowing what they were):
And if you don’t think that list of comments above doesn’t translate into, “You’re an idiot”, well, that’s your right.
But let’s drop this. It’s a pointless hijack. And in a way it’s my fault - when I started responding to the first message, I said to myself, “Why am I doing this? I know Collounsbury is going to show up and be rude and obnoxious, and I’ll just have to quit the thread anyway.” But I went ahead and posted it. My bad. Absent his re-banning, my prime rule on the SDMB is, “Don’t take part in threads that might bring Collounsbury around.” Life is too short for that kind of aggravation.
Oh, we all know about Coll, its not like there are any virgins amongst us. I only hope he will engage moderation and tolerance because I would rather miss him were he banned again.
Perhaps that should read “will miss him when he’s banned again.”
Put very simply, IMHO, the war in Iraq made not a bit of difference in the attitudes of people over there. Those people who liked us and wanted us there cheered and supported us, and those who did not hate us no more than they did before.
Nobody makes friends by bombing them into submission. All they make is controlled and subdued enemies, and even that’s questionable. The terrorists aren’t going to magically go away, and we didn’t instantly create a friendly country. All depends now on what we do after the war with the rebuilding.
The question I’m most interested in is what their opinions will be 20 years from now. We’ll see, I guess.
Nice to see that you are back and, apparently, safe and sound.
I can only add that no matter what one may think of the US, there is absolutely no justification for the recent bombings taking place that are killing inocent men, women and children. To even remotely imply that it is the US that is “causing” the terrorist bombings is beyond comprehension. They are the acts of people whose only interest is destruction. It sickens me to see one ounce of “understanding” dirtected at these barbaric criminals.
Perhaps the reason is that Tomndebb is in fact reading, and the “insults” alleged were actually in line with (or skating up to the line of) GD guidelines? There’s quite a difference between what Collounsbury posts and the stuff we get from the likes of Torben, for example, or even from you in this thread, Calculus. And if you want to talk relationships between posters, I invite you to take it to the pit. There you can discuss all the previous times this kind of thing has come up, and the same tired and flimsy crap we hear from a certain ideological band or group of propagandaphagi every time, before it’s shot down.
Now that does not seem in line with GD policy. Are you in fact resorting to personal insults/obnoxiousness while decrying the same? Besides, the first part of your sentence is a gross understatement, as a perusal of these boards will show the interested reader.
Surely you understand that we are not all simplistic idiots here, and that no one has suggested justification for these acts of terror?
It’s not at all beyond comrephension, at least when it’s discussed intelligently. The terrorists are a wild and violent element – they have demonstrated their tactics before and will do so again, killing innocents and causing destruction wherever the opportunity arises. That does not mean that the violence is completely random and nonsensical. As an example, just before Gulf War II got going, a significant fear that many people had (including many of us here) was that an unwarranted attack on Iraq would lead to more radicalized Arab populations and exacerbate the problem of terrorism, and so forth. TheOnion.com had a brilliant satirical ad about a new American bomb “capable of creating 5,000 terrorists with a single blast”. Note also what Airman Doors said: “Nobody makes friends by bombing them into submission”. (I disagree with his interpretation that nothing much has changed, but I’ll leave that for later if I have time).
So yes, some people consider it valid to connect the US to the deplorable efforts of terrorists. Why? Because the US has a history of “questionable” involvement in the Middle East, and the invasion of Iraq is at present another chapter in a book that Arabs and many Muslims around the world view as humiliating. Judging by some comments on these boards the news doesn’t seem to be penetrating to many Americans, but most Arabs are aware (superficially at least) of the various deceptions that the US and the UK played in order to promote the war, on fasle grounds as it were. Bush built up this war on fake evidence and loopy arguments, and I trust everyone can understand why that approach would inflame populations.
This is more of a knee-jerk than anything else. Yes they are criminals, yes their actions are barbaric, but to state their only interest is destruction is really just another version of “they just hate us/freedom whatever the circumstances, it’s their problem”. In fact, it’s an approach that deliberately avoids addressing the problems.
“Understanding”, which you scoff at and say makes you sick, is the most critical element here. Why are the terrorists doing the things they do? How come such barbaric acts are committed in the name of religion? How much of a role does religion play in brain-washing people, some of them even to the point that they will blow themselves up? Is it really religion, or is religion simply the smokescreen and excuse employed? What is it these bastards want to accomplish? And so forth. Everyone, even the most evil and sinister of people, may be operating as a result of genuine motives and reasoning.
Unless you have another sweeping plan to end terrorism, understanding is the first and most crucial step towards reducing or even putting an end to this scourge.
The substance then, reminding that the context is claims as to changed perceptions of America.
Entire response one long ad hominem? No it was taking exception to the unfactual nature of your assertions contra Istara’s. I did indeed call into question your assertions. Apparently refuting your “wishful thinking” as Gozu called it making is an ad hominem in your book, and you prefer to claim I called you an idiot (and ignore the others disagreeing with you) rather than get to the meat. But let’s get to the meat:
Well, instead of dealing head on, you set up a tendentious summary. Shall we return to what was actually said; Here:
I have bolded the specific instance to which I responded. Nota bene, the following responds also to the overall characterization.
Then we note what I am responding to. Indeed I call your sources second rate. Not at all an ad hominem, it’s your sourcing I am casting aspersion on, and perhaps your analysis – as well as your over simplification of the evolution of opinion and generally bombastically sweeping and exaggerated statements.
And I corrected your characterization for the falsity that it was with a specific timeline of evolution of opinion. Specific timeline. You can whinge on and make bloody excuses as you like, that’s your prerogative. However, the reality is that your “summary” and your above commentary are not accurate reflections of Arab opinion. They’re self serving resumes to cast things in the most favorable light for your argument. You wanted to imply a certain thing, falsely. The reality is and was that initially people thought Saddam would fold, then got hopeful that the fight seen in March would continue, and hopes were dashed by the sudden collapse in Baghdad.
And as I noted during the war, there was indeed a real Iraqi nationalist reaction. People crossing back into the country to fight, and given the circumstances, fairly tenacious Iraqi resistance – although without coordination. Guerilla actions that surprised the US forces and made the advance rather slower than expected. I also heard the Iraqi reactions around here first hand, which matched the reports from orgs like BBC that there was something of a rally round the flag effect when Iraq was seeming to give America more of a fight than bargained for, all around, although obviously in the end trivial.
Where to begin, Sam my man, where to begin? First, of course, as I noted, before the war started pretty much every informed person I knew thought the Americans would indeed cut through the Iraqis like a hot knife butter. It wasn’t a bad bet. After all, third rate little bullshit Arab army against a superpower. Now then there is your tendentious rendition of the war itself. No uprisings in Arab areas – e.g. Basra apparently never happened, no people turning against him. The military had units fighting when cut off – now surely there was some good old Soviet style political commissars to keep in line, and now everyone claims they fought only when they had to. However the contemporary reporting indicated tenacious resistance, and very few surrenders. Then at the end, largely units melted away, for as of yet unknown reasons. Lot’s a folks making problems now, however, lots of armed men and suspicious patterns. Post-War of course the worm turns, but there is no small degree of opportunism here, now everyone was anti-Sadaam just waiting for the moment. Convenient that, but contemporary reports, as I noted at the time, indicate a rather more complicated situation of people caught between a regime they did not like and an invasion they did not like by a government they do not like.
Wake up call? That another Arab army got squashed like a bug? That another Arab society shows it is so riven with divisions that there is no cohesion? I know very well what you were trying to imply, to pimp the argument that this has been a big wake up call to the Arab world that they need democracy, blah blah. Part of the whole transformation argument the Wolfie crew has been pimping. Well, it’s a bloody straw man. The elites remain the same, their interests remain the same and all the contradictions remain the same, moreover none of this is new nor a revelation. US power is certainly clearer – but hardly news, nor is it clear “democracy” is promoted by this “wake up call” – rather avoiding getting in the cross hairs is enough of an answer (as well as pursing interminable ‘democratization’ processes as in Egypt, Yemen, etc.)
Very nice then, the Russians were stupid. I grant you that readily, and as I said I wasn’t following them. Not much relevance to what Arab opinion was about the war.
Wonderful, you pulled up some arties now Sam my man, now how does that go to your characterization? You do recall do you not Sam that I did not indicate such articles do not exist, I indicated it does not reflect a “new” introspection in the Arab Street nor the dominant reaction. You asserted a view as to the rarity or not of opinions and took a position as to the depth and age of these bloody opinions, and a strong assertion at that. Well I call bullshit. But let’s look at them:
I think the full quotation speaks for itself, insofar as I remain of the opinion Sam’s readings of some online English lang. articles hardly gives him a basis to rebut either my read or Istara’s or others.
Next:
Emphasis added. So there’s the context for my telling Sam he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He makes the claim – from lord knows what basis that internal critiques, “introspection” was “almost unheard of before [ the war ]” – something that is simply and absurdly false. Perhaps, just perhaps one can make an argument that there may be an upswing in critiques – but Sam’s assertion is exactly as I describe above “fucking false.” Sam of course elides this little detail in his response, preferring to complain about me telling him he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Well, frankly he does not. We probably do have a small spike in the “We Arabs Suck” articles, the calls for democracy or reform, but the claim this is almost unheard of before the war is patently absurd. The folks behind, for example, Arab Human Development Report of 2002 did not come from nowhere, and throughout the 1990s as I said we have seen reformist pushes and calls for more sustained self-awareness. Always stalled out, but it’s not something the war generated. Perhaps, if Iraqi reconstruction goes well – certainly a novel change from the present – then we may see a bump to reformism.
Now :
The response there is to Sam’s little smear, the snide implication that reports of Iraqi dissatisfaction and anger, at the US is nothing more than journalistic fabrications and reporting based on “Baathists” and regime big wigs.
I try to read what I can and make judgements based on that. I no more believe Arab propoganda than I do US propaganda. I appreciate commentators such as ** Collounsbury
** because he/she is in a position to have a much different viewpoint; living and working with Arabian prople. While I don’t necessarily believe everything he says, your post is no more than a one-sided argument with nothing to base it on.
Please do ** NOT ** include assumptions about me in any additional posts.
Well, I’m sure there are many americans who don’t feel very much feared or respected since the Bush “geographical” adventure. Specially those dead or injured in the recent bombings.