 |
|  |
 |
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001 time: 05:22
|
|
I read an interesting article in the NY Times this today, which ran with the headline "Anger at the US Said to Be at New High."
It doesn't mean to, but raises an interesting point. What should the arab world do in the aftermath of september 11?
Basically, several things in the article bothered me. According to the a Jordanian journalist, Mr. Khouir, "everyone [he] knows wants Hussein removed." He then goes on to say that he doesn't trust Ameri ca to do it, because "they are the last people in the world who will work on the behalf of Arab interests."
Well, aside from the fact that the 2nd is blatantly untrue, it raises a question. At what point should the Arab world start taking care of itself?
If there was a man such as Hussein in, say, Eastern Europe (say, in a balkan nation)the EU would most likely invade, and overthrow him before things got worse. Yet even in the aftermath of 9/11, there was barely a murmur of support from "America's staunchest Arab allies" Egypt and Jordan.
The article goes on to say that the Arabs feel closer to American culture than to European, yet now feel like jilted lovers, because America supports oppressive regimes. (True, although Jordan is one of the beter nations; Saudi Arabia should be condemned, but that's another story).
Yet where's the support in the Arab world itself for democratic reforms? The only nation which I've seen where there's such an interest is Iran, which has been under American sanctions since the late 70's.
Here's a few ironic comments: "People in the Arab world are much more educated than before and they resent their regimes." This resentment would strengthen the hand of such extremist organizations, he said."
Does anybody else see the irony involved in that last quote?
Finally, Mr. Aly, director of the Ahram center for political and strategic studies in Cairo, cited four major flaws in the Bush agenda: support for Mr. Sharon, unequivocally. Mr. Aly then said the support for Israel was the driving force behind Bush's desire to topple Saddam. The other three flaws were: dealing with Iraq wihout preparation, misguided policies on dealing with terrorists, and the negative general rhetoric from Washington about muslims and arabs.
You could argue that many of those flaws existed. However, considering how the president has tried to emphasize that he's not trying to declare war on islam, and came on the air almost immediately after the first hate crime, warning people to stop, I'd like to know what rhetoric is meant.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000 time: 23:22
|
|
Hmm ... well, Iraq's leaders aren't endearing themselves to Americans very much; to wit, the main headline in the state-run main newspaper celebrated Sept. 11, 2001 with a massive photo of the burning towers and a headline saying something to the effect that America deserved it.
I sometimes find it funny that certain Arabs complain about our support for repressive regimes, yet can you imagine the *uproar* we'd get if we turned on the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan and whatnot? Cripes, it'd turn the hoopla surrounding potential action against Saddam Hussein into small spuds. Seriously. The very same people, I think, would turn on us and accuse us of meddling in the internal affairs of Saudi Arabia, et al., if we decided to stick to principles and begin making moves to force said nation(s) into democracies.
Either way, we make enemies, and our allies will probably nitpick at us as well. Gee, isn't the world a fun place to live in?
Gatekeeper
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lars-E
|
|
The Arab and Muslim world should try to do something with the following:
Most terrorists come from Arab or Muslim countries.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Faeelin
According to the a Jordanian journalist, Mr. Khouir, "everyone [he] knows wants Hussein removed." He then goes on to say that he doesn't trust Ameri ca to do it, because "they are the last people in the world who will work on the behalf of Arab interests."
Well, aside from the fact that the 2nd is blatantly untrue |
Why is it untrue?
quote: If there was a man such as Hussein in, say, Eastern Europe (say, in a balkan nation)the EU would most likely invade, and overthrow him before things got worse. Yet even in the aftermath of 9/11, there was barely a murmur of support from "America's staunchest Arab allies" Egypt and Jordan. |
Maybe they resent and distrust you more than they want Saddam out.
Maybe they think you will be more destructive than Saddam if you try to do anything.
quote: Saudi Arabia should be condemned, but that's another story |
Is it? By discarding things so easily you fail to see the impact and parameters they have on the muslim world and the world in general.
quote: Yet where's the support in the Arab world itself for democratic reforms? |
Ironically enough (not really) the US is crushing it and has crushed it on a number of occasions. Better a pro - american regime oppresive to its people than an anti-american democracy.
quote: Here's a few ironic comments: "People in the Arab world are much more educated than before and they resent their regimes." This resentment would strengthen the hand of such extremist organizations, he said."
Does anybody else see the irony involved in that last quote? |
Only a lack by your part to realize what I think is obvious.
quote: You could argue that many of those flaws existed. However, considering how the president has tried to emphasize that he's not trying to declare war on islam, and came on the air almost immediately after the first hate crime, warning people to stop, I'd like to know what rhetoric is meant. |
The rehtoric is very substancial. It means that if the arab world lets or helps US invade Iraq who would be next? Maybe whoever else does not conform with american demands?
The call to rally under the banner of the "arab world" is secondary and serves the above mentioned concern.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tolls
As I pointed out on Ned's thread, Al-Jezeera is the one that has shown interviews with Al-Quaeda representatives recently saying they planned it...
If the people don't believe them that is hardly their fault.
|
"Recently" may be the key work here. I believe they refused to run prior OBL tapes, like the one where he was dining with the Saudi shiek, even while they carried the 4000 Jews stayed home story.
One of our (the West's) main problems with Arabia is that none of our news networks has an Arabic-language broadcast. So what the average Arab sees is Al-Jezeera, which does not seem to be totally neutral and unbiased.
Last edited by Ned on 13-09-2002 at 00:45
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:22
|
|
All this 'arab are terrorists', 'there is something terribly wrong with Arabs' is just a bunch of self-serving rantings design to make people in the US and Europe feel like they are the biggest victims in the world. Lets look at some interesting numbers:
# people killed by Al Qaeda in terrorist attacks: High estimates: 5000 people since 1993.
# Israelis killed by all Palestinian factions since 1950: 2500 (the Israeli foreign office gives out ful lists of all Israeli citizens killed in what Israel considers terrorists attacks since 1950. I have added about 700+ extra just to be safe)
# westerners killed by other Arab terrorist groups since 1970: lets say 4000 (way to high by any strech of the imagination)
Total? 11500 people in 50 years, most in the last 25.
Number kiled in Colombia over the same time? 30000 plus.
Numer killed in Guatemala? 150000
NUmber killed in Gulf War? 100000+
Number kiled in iran Iraq war? half million plus
NUmber killed in the Sudan war? 2.5 million
Number of people killed in Ethopia Eritrea border war? 50000.
Number of people kiled in central African war? 2 million.
Number killed by Hutu extremists in 3 months in 1994? 1 million (figures based on Rwandan government census)
Number kiled by regime in kampuchea in 1970's? 2 million.
Everyone here keeps talking about how evil and screwed p the Arabs are, the muslims are, yet in simple temrs of human suffereing all the terrorists attacks, including the biggest one of all, 9/11, are dwarfed by the vast human suffering in many parts of the world, much of it having 0 to do with Arab, or Muslims, or the normal bogeymen. Can someone lease explain to me why Osama Bin Laden is labelled the greatest evil in the wolrd, when there is a man in trial in Tanzania, accused of helping to organize, lan and execute a chain of events that killed 1000000 in three months, or three times as many dead as in 9/11 a day, for 90 plus days in a row? Is it because he isn't Arab ad Muslim that we can't label a man, with possibly, endlessly more blood on his hands, the greatest evil man in the worlkd today?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lars-E
|
|
Just curious...do any of you Jews in here believe that the Arabs stem from Ishmael and that they will be a thorn in your side? Forever? Or that "the hand of the Arab is against everybody?"
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|