Why does the muslim world only seem to get angry when the US or Israel does wrong

Great Debates
21

The problem with this POV is that I don’t really know if this is the ‘reason’ for the hatred or just a result of hatred. People you hate are always seen as evil and corrupt, irrelevant of how evil and corrupt they really are. Yes the US does evil interventions, but if you honestly believe that if we left tomorrow that the hate would stop you are being really naive. As your post shows double standards and half truths are taken as gospel when these things justify and encourage a pre-concieved hateful bias. Yes the US has supported Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two regimes out of about 30 in the region. The US also supports the democracies of Israel & Turkey as well as the partial democracies of Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan & Kuwait. Just a few months ago the US supported the Syrian withdrawl of Lebanon, ending 20 years of imperialistic rule by a serious human rights abuser. True, it was all intervention but to pretend its all evil intervention just shows your true colors. If people are mad about intervention, then be mad but to pretend its all evil and that the US just wants to kill everyone/thing to get oil shows a very biased, one sided point of view.

The problem is no different than the one I asked in my OP, why is only the US criticized? You didn’t answer that question you just threw out a list of insults and didn’t explain why you and others have no hate for all the other evil influences in the middle east or why you ignore all the good the US does (by that I mean, yes we support and have supported some evil regimes but the US has also supported human rights reform & democratic reform in the middle east too). This has nothing to do with my question, you are just acting out the behavior that I want to know the motive of.

At the core of it the hatred and double standards (Jenin being seen as a massacre while Black September is ignored, US support for Saudi Arabia yelled about while US support for the pullout in Lebanon is ignored, etc) is probably xenophobia and support for Israel.

Do you have proof that the US ‘chooses arab governments’? The US puts pressure on governments, but some of that pressure seems to be pressure for liberalization (at least the public pressure we put on is). The idea that we are puppeteering the entire mideast is the arena of conspiracy theories, impossible to prove and as a result impossible to disprove too.

And how does the US slaughter everyone who disagrees? With the Iraqi wars? That was one nation out of 30 middle eastern/northern africa nations (actually closer to 40 nations if you include all the ones west of India and south of Russia like Uzbekistan or Pakistan). If you want to pass off 2 wars over 15 years as us killing everyone go ahead, but it just shows your intense bias. If you want to be biased go ahead but to pretend you aren’t doesn’t help anyone.

22

Wesley Clark: What I mean is, from what I can see (and I admit I could be wrong) it seems that muslims seem to reserve their anger for the US and Israel, and do not care much about other acts of brutality against Muslims carried out by other nations or cultures.

I think this mostly reflects the natural biases of US media. When Muslims protest or riot about US or Israeli actions, it gets into American newspapers and news programs. The examples that **Little Nemo[/b[ mentions (and many others, such as the 1992 destruction of the Babri Mosque by Hindu fundamentalists in India), on the other hand, get a lot less attention. But just because they aren’t shoved in front of our faces by our media doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

The actions of the US tend to provoke more widespread anger and protests among Muslims worldwide, it’s true, but I think that’s because the US is perceived as by far the most powerful and aggressive anti-Muslim influence. (Not that I personally would agree that the US is intrinsically anti-Muslim, but I think we are perceived that way by many Muslims, not entirely unreasonably given some of our actions.)

23

Coupla things.

First of all, this was a front-page story in Muslim newspapers in the U.S. Maybe U.S. Muslims didn’t choose to riot, but they were plenty offended.

Second, as it was explained by some area muslims, the Quran is considered very sacred–an item to be kissed and pressed against the forehead. It is the highest symbol of faith, the absolute word of god handed down by an archangel. Culturally it may command a reverence that isn’t matched by other religious (or patriotic) symbols for other groups. Obviously that’s not universally true, but it’s fair to say it’s a big deal.

They don’t have a monopoly on freaking out, of course. I do seem to remember some U.S. citizens lying down, wailing, and crying when a granite depiction of the Ten Commandment was hauled out of a southern courthouse, so there you have it.

24

Um, most of the Muslim world doesn’t care about Ayodhya or Kashmir, two highly heated issues that South Asian Muslims obssess about. When the Babri Masjid was destroyed, there was no widespread disgust, protest, or commotion that the Newsweek story caused, despite the fact that the destruction of the mosque (along with the betrayal of the provincial government and the subsequent genocide) was far, far worse than desecrating a Qur’an. Plus, these two issues hit the Muslim world - or ought to - closer than US’s deeds. As a matter of fact, the government of Sharjah of the United Arab Emirates suppressed with force a protest by South Asian Muslims, deporting the protesters.

Hardly fair, eh?

WRS

25

You asked a question, I gave an answer. You may not like my answer, but that doesn’t mean that my answer is merely an insult. It’s still an answer.

You’re just throwing around irrelevant information. The fact is this. The United States is a foreign power trying to rule much of the Middle East through invasions and puppet governments such as the House of Saud. The fact that we supported expelling the Syrians from Lebanon doesn’t mean that we’re not a foreign power. The fact that we support Turkey doesn’t mean that we’re not a foreign power.

As for my claim that withdrawing from the Middle East would eliminate the Arb world’s hatred of us, you can claim it’s naive of course. With the current administartion, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever get a chance to prove myself correct. But consider, do you see savage hatred against America from any part of the world where the United States isn’t trying to take over and run things from afar?

26

When was the last time Christians went on a riotous, lethal rampage about anything someone of another religion did? Your example does not suffice: some people freaked out, there was no massive, international outrage or riots because of this or any act.

Americans have witnessed the corpses of their people being dragged through streets - something that not even the “evil, capitalist, imperialist, Zionist, anti-Muslim” Americans have done. They have witnessed innocent civilians being slaughtered like animals - something that not even the “evil, capitalist, imperialist, Zionist, anti-Muslim” Americans have done. They have heard of churches and Christian communities being attacked, while non-Christians live with much, much greater safety within our borders. When was the last time we went on a rampage because of any of these injustices? Surely, even Muslims will agree that lives and places of worship - even those of the People of the Book, which Christians are a part of - have higher value than the Qur’an.

WRS

27

Well, Israel isn’t trying to rule the Near East. They just want to be in peace in their borders without any econonic, political, or cultural imperialism. Why are Muslims all up in arms against them?

IMHO, colonialism/imperialism is a good thing.

If the British did not rule South Asia, there would today be no infrastructure. It would still be ruled by warring princedoms - most of them Muslim (meaning Hindus would still be the underdog, unless they led a bloody revolt to overthrow their Muslim overlords).

If the Western powers did not descend on the Near East (and neighboring states) in search and development of oil, the Arab Houses would still be pirates living in goatskin tents.

As a person with roots in Muslim lands, I’d rather the US rule, directly or indirectly, than live with the atrocious mismanagement of Islamic governments. There’s a good reason many Muslims believe God has abandoned Muslims: they look at their failures and the West’s accomplishments and come to only one conclusion.

Besides, even if the US was being all imperialistic and domineering, there is more than enough going on in the Muslim world for Muslims to be occupied. If they’re so concerned about themselves and their religion, they ought to do something about their lack of advancement and development.

WRS

28

QUOTE=WeRSauron]When was the last time Christians went on a riotous, lethal rampage about anything someone of another religion did?
[/quote]

While I largely agree with your point, I would note that Christian mobs have committed atrocities ( often retaliatory to be sure, as part of ongoing sectarian strife ) against Muslim communities in countries like Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire, and Indonesia to name a few.

But I’d certainly agree that the number of American Christians ( or most Christians, generally, really - desecration being a less ingrained issue by and large ) that would be willing to kill over something like a desecration issue is almost certainly limited to a relative handful of mentally deranged whackos.

They regard them ( not without reason, though it isn’t necessarily a good one, certainly not at this point ) as colonialialist invaders who have “stolen” Muslim land. As I said I wouldn’t argue that it is a great reason, but it is a reason. There are of course a number of other factors at play as well, simple anti-Jewish bigotry ( well-entrenched in the region since at least the 19th century ) not being the least of them by any means

Nonsense. IMHO.

Nonsense. We can’t argue about what sort of infrastructure there would have been because we don’t know for sure and given British economic dominance and material wealth ( partially predicated on Indian resources and a deliberately captive Indian market of course ) it may have been less than what was installed. But maybe not - British dominance was secured on the subcontinent before the real birth of the industrial revolution. At any rate if you arguing that Britain was competing in a total backwater in India you need to read up on some more Indian history. It was hardly a basketcase ( and to take another example China was making real strides in western-style industrialization in the 19th century, though for various reasons they were less successful than Japan ).

By far the dominant territorial, military and economic power in India of the time was the ( somewhat decentralized ) Hindu Maratha state - a de facto pentarchy by the 18th century, but before final conquest ( in 1818 ) it was showing signs of re-centralization as certain elements re-built their militaries to western specs ( the Sindhia/Shinde family for example was becoming the tail that wags the dog ). Indeed British rule positively preserved some Muslim-ruled states with Hindu majorities, for example the largest princely state in the Raj, Hyderabad ( invaded and conquered and incorporated by force by India after independence ), which was fast losing territory to the vastly more powerful Marathas and would certainly been eventually annexed entirely after a final defeat in 1795 at Kharda if not for the British presense ( instead they just lost a third of their state at that point, ceded to the Marathas ). Even the Mughal empire was essentially a Maratha appanage at one point and, again, would have certainly been so again ( after Afghan decay after the death of Ahmed Shah Abdali ), if not for British interference.

Here’s one map I dug up quickly:

Nonsense. The Ottomans too were reforming economically ( as well as otherwise ) and Egypt had been making fair progress before the British relieved Khedive Ismail of his over-leveraged state. Sudan, Yemen, places like that - perhaps they would have continued to stagnate badly. But then they hardly thrived under colonial rule either.

Foreign rule, actual or even just illusionary but perceived, just breeds resentment and reaction. Revolution, I fear, must come from below, not imposed from without.

Nope they come to multiple conclusions. One of which, very unfortunately, is that they should never have messed with that new-fangled liberalism and secularism which has just led to brutal exploitationist governments as in Egypt or Algeria - time to return to fundamentalist religious ideology instead, at least they aren’t as openly corrupt.

Well, hey, that’s just what those mullahs in Iran are trying to do ;).

Sorry, but there are no easy answers and U.S. imperialism certainly isn’t one of them.

  • Tamerlane
29

Looks like you’ll have to cut and paste that map url. Sorry 'bout that.

  • Tamerlane
30

US Releases Photos of Saddam’s Sons

Images and video footage of Iraqi civilians killed-injured by American and British forces (warning: graphic imagery)

"In Jalalabad, the Sultanpur Mosque was hit by a bomb during prayers, with 17 people caught inside. Neighbors rushed into the rubble to help pull out the injured, but as the rescue effort got under way, another bomb fell, killing at least 120 people.

“In the village of Darunta near Jalalabad, a U.S. bomb fell on another mosque. Two people were killed and dozens–perhaps as many as 150 people–were injured. Many of those injured are languishing without medical care in the Sehat-e-Ama hospital in Jalabad, which lacks resources to treat the wounded.”
–Where the Bodies Are

31

Nothing can shut me up like a post from a Master Doper™, who Tamerlane undoubtedly is. I stand down. (Is that an accurate phrase?)

WRS

32

“But the colonialists built infrastructure.”
“Yeah, all those railroads going directly from the mines to the coast.” To extract the wealth.

33

Well, North Korea springs to mind.

And folks like the Taliban and al Queda hate us, not because we want to take them over from afar, but because (in part) because we stopped Saddam from taking over Kuwait (and set foot in Saudi Arabia). And a good many of those who later formed the Taliban benefited to some degree from US efforts to stop the former USSR from taking over Afghanistan and ruling it from afar.

I think there are complex causes for anti-Americanism. Islamic terrorists hate us because we are a secular liberal democracy (rather than imposing sharia). The Palestinians hate us because we support Israel. Everyone else hates us because the US is the most powerful nation on earth by most measures, and many in the third world find it convenient to distract their subjects by blaming all their troubles on the US. Some of the hatred may even be justified - the US is not a perfect nation, God knows.

And I honestly believe that some people simply hate irrationally, and for a variety of reasons, mostly historical, they find a larger audience in the Middle East than they do in the West, or even much of Asia, or Africa apart from North Africa.

Insert the Frog and the Scorpion story here.

Regards,
Shodan

34

Oh, and PS -

It’s always a pleasure to read your stuff, Tamerlane.

Regards,
Shodan

35

Isn’t it? He totally rocks.

Although I don’t always agree with you, Shodan, I agree with your post about why peeps hate the US. It gave me much to think about. Thanks!

WRS

36

I’m going to step in and disagree with the premise that Muslim hatred is complex or, as some have suggested, a recent occurrence.

Hatred exists because people teach it to their young. It’s that simple. Pick any time period in history where mass hatred is practiced and it boils down to a philosophy passed down from generation to generation. It’s often magnified by people in political power as a means of increasing their base of influence. Today we see it in state supported religious schools that teach only 2 things, The Koran, and hatred of Jews. The indoctrination of small children to become killing machines is the most powerful tool ever created to wage war.

What has carried Islamic extremism so far in history (or why Islam stopped evolving as a religion) is a lack of centralized leadership. The power structure within Islam is very flat. There is no formal structure within each sect of Islam and the people who carry the greatest power do so in a feudal fashion. It may actually be the result of the Crusades. The reversal of Islamic domination in Europe (through war) interrupted the natural progress of Islam by forcing it backward in time to a point where power was more important than scientific progress. Which is ironic because that is what Christianity did to itself. We even give it a name, the Dark Ages. Today we are witnessing the Islamic Dark Ages and it corresponds in the human timeline when nuclear weapons exist.

The current hatred of the United States is linked to Israel by-association. The conflict with the US goes back to the days when Muslims enslaved Americans in Africa. The same words used today to justify terrorism are hauntingly similar to the ones spoken to Thomas Jefferson in 1786 by Tripoli Ambassador Abdrahaman. Paraphrased from Time Magazine Jul 05, 2004: It is justified on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could not be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners.

It is an often forgotten page from American history but it summarizes the conflict between Islam and the world at large. As long as this religious mindset remains, casualties will grow exponentially as modern weapons become available to those who believe they are sanctioned by God to use them.

37

Actually the al-Qaeda types really did loathe SH ( but no less than the al-Sabahs of Kuwait ) - ObL offered the use of his Afghan mujahadeen to the Saudi government right before their final break to protect SA and help oust SH. And I really do think they ( or at least many of the more fanatical and less cynical of them ) believe that the U.S. is out to destroy Islam.

But I do agree about the somewhat irrational angst over the setting foot on the Arabian penninsula thing ;).

Agreed ( with only a smallish caveat about the relative importance of hatred of liberal democracy - I’m not sure this is a huge factor - at the very least it is lower on the list of grievances, real and imagined ).

And thanks to both you and WeRSauron for the kind words :).

  • Tamerlane
38

I meant to say they hated SH no more than the al-Sabahs, not a well-loved regime by anyone in the ME/NA far as I can determine.

39

I would certainly agree that they were more pissed over the presence of US and allied troops in Saudi Arabia than the driving out of Saddam from Kuwait. But doesn’t that go somewhat to show the double standard? Some elements of al Queda are now in Iraq fighting against the US - even though they allegedly hated Saddam.

I expect much of the reason being, the US is not going to replace the corrupt and secular government of Saddam with an Islamic state, but with a secular democracy. Which they see are pretty much inherently corrupt because it does not follow the Qur’an.

It seems a case can be made, therefore, that the US and the West really does want to destroy Islam, in that they want governments to be secular democracies rather than sharia based.

You have a certain level of skepticism about the Islamic fundamentalist resistance to secular government. I have pretty much the same level about Islamic support for Palestinians. It seems to me that they emphasize different parts of their rhetoric based on their audience, and on what the US or the West has done lately. We overthrow a nominally Islamic terrorist leader - so we are hated for wanting to destroy Islam. If we didn’t, we would be hated for our support of Israel.

You just can’t please some people.

Regards,
Shodan

40

It is not really more of a double standard than the Filipinos fighting the Spaniards and then continuing to fight the U.S. or various guerrillas in Eastern Europe fighting the Germans and then contiuning to fight the U.S.S.R. until overrun. Lots of people see any large group of outside invaders as “bad” regardless of the purported motives of those invaders. There is a certain bitter irony that the presence of insurgents in Iraq is liable to cause the U.S. to continue to occupy the country for an even longer period, but it is not really a double standard.