Okay, what do foreign Muslim leaders suggest we do?

Factual Questions
1

First, let me apologize if this has been addressed in another thread. There are just so many 9/11 related ones out there I have not read them all. Post a link and I’ll be grateful.

To no one’s surprise, the current situation appears to consist of the USA exerting tremendous political/military/economic/PR pressure on the various Muslim* countries to assist or support our anti-terrorism campaign. Their responses seem to vary from lukewarm support to weasly, doubletalky, non-answers. Obviously, they are not pleased at being put in this situation. Still, they seem to realize that the USA is justified in being very, very pissed.

So, if we were to ask them (…has anyone?..) what would they suggest we do?

Thanks for your replies, all.

  • I honestly did not know which term to use, Muslim, Islamic, Middle Eastern or another word, so I just picked the first one. Forgive me if it is a flawed term, but I think you still get the essense of my question.
2

Well, much of it is posturing (on our part and on theirs.) For instance, Syria is a nest for terrorists, asking Syria to join the anti-terrorist activity is like asking the Klu Klux Klan to oppose bigotry and to support arms control.

However, if you asked them what they think we should do, the answers start with:
(a) remove the US presence from the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia (this means the oil companies, mostly)
(b) dismantle the state of Israel, kill all the Jews who emigrated there after 1948, and give the land (buildings, businesses, assets, etc) to the Palestinians
© provide lots and lots of money to the Arab rulers, under the pretext that this money is going to help the unfortunate and poor in their country
(d) dismantle all American wealth and give it to the Arab rulers, under the pretext that this money is going to build an infrastructure
(e) dismantle the U.S. military presence entirely

The more radical among them would ask for additional concessions, such as:
(f) forced conversion of all Americans to Islam, and murdering any who disagreed

They’d probably be happy with total and unconditional surrender of the U.S. to Iraq, Syria, and the Taliban… then they could set terms later.

PS - I’m not being facetious, these are the stated goals of Bin Laden, Iraq, and the radical Palestinian groups. Of course, they express them less concisely and somewhat more tactfully than I have.

3

Carry on doing what we’re doing i.e. needing their co-operation. By the weekend Israel should be back at the negotiating table, Sharon will be rocking back and forth in a corner somewhere and something based on Oslo will be (again !) within grasp. Or so they hope.

That’s the deal, they’re happy with it.

4

Dex, I’m disappointed. Normally you give such level-headed, informative answers.

While I’ve no doubt a couple of the more extremist “leaders” would rattle off these demands, the cooler heads which actually prevail recognize the value of being friends with the biggest kid on the block. Of course, they walk a fine line, since almost all of them have highly vocal, fundamentalist minorities who would like to see the US out of the Islamic world.

The main things I’ve been hearing from the moderate leaders are: don’t make this a crusade against Islam; do everything possible to avoid harming innocents; and, since the level of trust is not very high, show us the proof that Al Qaida, bin Laden, and/or the Taliban are responsible. (If the US can do that, most of these moderates would love to get rid of all three, and can use the evidence to satisfy their populations.)

– Beruang

P.S.:

“* I honestly did not know which term to use, Muslim, Islamic, Middle Eastern or another word, so I just picked the first one. Forgive me if it is a flawed term, but I think you still get the essense of my question.”

“Muslim” refers to the people. “Islamic” refers to the religion. The terms are pretty close to interchangeable, though I suppose if you wanted to pick nits, a “Muslim county” would be one where the majority of the population follows Islam; an “Islamic country” might be one where the leaders are members of the clergy and follow Islamic law; and “Middle Eastern” is a geographic definition. Traditionally, I believe it was everything east of the Mediterranean, west of Pakistan, and south of the Black and Caspian Seas.

Thus, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and others are Muslim, but not Islamic. Afghanistan is Muslim and Islamic, but arguably not Middle East. Morocco is Muslim; I’m not sure if it’s Islamic; it’s nowhere near the Middle East, but all of North Africa often gets thrown into the mix.

5

Beruang, I think my answer WAS level-headed and objective.

Of course, it depends on who you talk to, I suppose, as with any government. And it depends on which country you ask, since Indonesia will respond different from Iraq, for instance.

In most Arab countries, there is only one person to talk to – the king/dictator/ruler. I choked when President Bush last night mentioned that the terrorists are also threats to the “democratic” governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Egypt is a democracy like the old USSR was, you can vote for the ruling party/person but you can’t vote any other way. Saudi Arabi is a monarchy, pure and simple, and there is no pretense at democracy.

I was also somewhat disappointed that Bush did not mention specifically the nations that are a nest terrorism, such as Syria and Iraq.

That having been said, I think Bush gave a top-notch speech, accurately separating the fanatic extremists from Islam itself, etc. He also made it clear that we will do our best to avoid harming innocents. The only thing you were asking for that he did not do is to provide evidence against Bin Laden. It is fairly obvious to me that the can’t do that – the evidence includes witnesses, whose lives (and the lives of their families) will not be worth gnat shit if their names get out. And even the nature of their evidence might reveal who they are (“Hah! Only one person knew about that fund transfer!”)