Arab World vs Western World from their POV

[Darth Wong]

It is a fact of history that both sides of any conflict try to paint the other side as the aggressor. For every American who spread fear about the Red Menace during the Cold War, there was a Russian spreading fear that yet another invader would attack Mother Russia if they did not stand fast and fight the capitalist dogs.

So what do you think Muslims are saying about the "western world" right now? There are those on our side of the fence who argue that Islam fundamentally wishes to control the world, and that they are simply aggressive by nature. However, the same could be said of Christianity, with considerable historical precedent to back it up. Should one seriously believe that all Muslims are that aggressive? Why does the entire Muslim world seem to be against America? Are they all world-conquering megalomaniac lunatics, even the moderates?

So again: what do you think Muslims are saying about the western world? Perhaps a little bit of history might be instructive. At the beginning of the 19th century, Muslims in Algiers were thumbing their nose at the European powers. Not only were they slave-traders, but they would attack vessels on the open seas, kill many of their crew, and enslave the rest. They even captured an American warship at one point (the USS Philadelphia IIRC) which the Americans later destroyed in a daring infiltration raid. The European world was too engrossed in its own problems (many of which involved a guy named Napoleon) to deal with them.

But those problems eventually dissipated, and Europe turned its attention to the problem with the famous bombardment of Algiers: a naval battle in which the power of Algiers was broken decisively by an Anglo-Dutch fleet. Numerous concessions were made, but the French eventually invaded Algiers proper, and the era of European imperialism soon began in earnest.

Let us review the history: Muslims violating human rights and harassing others, attacked by European powers and forced to make concessions, eventually invaded outright, followed by massive imperialist aggression which eventually swept over virtually the entire world.

So I suspect that moderate Muslims, rather than screaming praises to Allah and dreaming of 72 virgins in heaven, are actually looking at the history and wondering if it's going to repeat itself. A Muslim state violating human rights and harassing neighbour states, attacked by the US in Gulf War 1 and forced to make concessions, eventually invaded outright in Gulf War 2 ... same pattern so far. I'm not saying that America or the entire western world is necessarily planning to steamroll over the entire Muslim world again (although people like Marina unabashedly advocate such a move), but if I were a moderate Muslim, I think I would have noticed the historical parallels.

Just food for thought. It's too easy to dismiss Muslim anger and fear as religious fanaticism, even though it's not just the fanatics who feel that way.

[Nova Andromeda]

--I wonder just how many muslims know the facts of history instead of some distorted version of them or just being ignorant of them. I would bet that they think the U.S. seeks to subjagate them economically using its military, economic, and political power. I would also bet they beleive the U.S. is going to support Isreal to the detriment of neighboring Arabs. However, who can say without asking them. Perhaps there is poll on the net somewhere?

[Nova Andromeda]

--Here are some polls I found on the net:
-Dress your fucking long links- DW
-http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1106/p1s1-wogi.html
-http://www.post-gazette.com/World/20030 ... 0604p6.asp

[HemlockGrey]

Of course, when America later went to war with and defeated the Barbary States, they did not enslave, colonize, or conquer.

[Nova Andromeda]

Dress your fucking long links- DW

--Sorry about that I didn't know how to (now I do thanks to the code in the quote) and didn't even think about it actually.

[MKSheppard]

Hrm, reading a very interesting book on the Six Day War...

Basically, Nasser (he who was in charge of Egypt) basically
knew what was considered acts of war by Israel and then
basically did exactly that.

I can't really blame the Israelis for attacking preemptively
the way the Japanese did in 1941.

[Bob McDob]

I've had a hard time finding any sort of moderate Arab discourse on this subject. It's almost as if with the neocons hawking loudly for hegemony and the moderates well-intentioned but ignorant, nobody bothered to ask the Arabs what they thought (unless those Arabs are "Usama bin ladin"). Any good websites on this point?

[Darth Wong]

Hrm, reading a very interesting book on the Six Day War...

Basically, Nasser (he who was in charge of Egypt) basically
knew what was considered acts of war by Israel and then
basically did exactly that.

I can't really blame the Israelis for attacking preemptively
the way the Japanese did in 1941.

What the fuck does the Six Day War have to do with this thread? I'm talking about Muslims probably observing parallels between current events and the 19th century, and you're talking about the Six Day War?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What the fuck does the Six Day War have to do with this thread?

Most (I could nearly get away with "all" here) Arabs regard Israel as part of the Western World.

[Darth Wong]

I've had a hard time finding any sort of moderate Arab discourse on this subject. It's almost as if with the neocons hawking loudly for hegemony and the moderates well-intentioned but ignorant, nobody bothered to ask the Arabs what they thought (unless those Arabs are "Usama bin ladin"). Any good websites on this point?

I dunno, it just occurred to me that if I were a moderate Muslim, this is the sort of thing I might be thinking. I just have a hard time believing that so many peoples' feelings on the subject can be simply characterized and dismissed as fanaticism, with no other basis.

[Saurencaerthai]

Hrm, reading a very interesting book on the Six Day War...

Basically, Nasser (he who was in charge of Egypt) basically
knew what was considered acts of war by Israel and then
basically did exactly that.

I can't really blame the Israelis for attacking preemptively
the way the Japanese did in 1941.

What the fuck does the Six Day War have to do with this thread? I'm talking about Muslims probably observing parallels between current events and the 19th century, and you're talking about the Six Day War?

I was wondering the exact same thing...

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck does the Six Day War have to do with this thread?

Most (I could nearly get away with "all" here) Arabs regard Israel as part of the Western World.

Doesn't change the fact that the thread is to discuss current anti-American feeling w.r.t. the Iraq situation as related to past history, and the Six Day War does not factor into that except in the most tangential way.

[MKSheppard]

Most (I could nearly get away with "all" here) Arabs regard Israel as part of the Western World.

And besides, it was moderately on topic for this thread.

[Perinquus]

Should one seriously believe that all Muslims are that aggressive? Why does the entire Muslim world seem to be against America? Are they all world-conquering megalomaniac lunatics, even the moderates?

No, of course they're not. No reasonable person in the West believes that all, or even the majority of Muslims are interested in waging a jihad to bring the world under Islamic law. The problem that I and a lot of Westerners have with the Muslim world right now is that there is a radical fringe of Islam that seems to want these things, and the too many Muslims in the so-called mainstream do not do enough to repudiate these fanatics. There is some really incredible venom-spewing and propagandizing going in even in mainstream mosques and Muslim news organizations, and this sort of thing is simply not constructive.

Too many more moderate Muslims accept this sort of thing, partly at least because they do have some real grievances with the United States, and they see these fringe groups of fanatics standing up to the American juggernaut, so they admire them for that. This is understandable, but they need to realize that regardless of their courage, one should not admire fanatical extremists, particularly ones that target innocent people for killing. It makes it harder to reach accomodation with your adversaries, since they will now have legitimate grounds to suspect you of extremismin your views. It also is generally a bad thing to let certain people's courage and strength of conviction blind you, or at least make you willing to overlook frankly despicable aspects of their character and methods.

[Bob McDob]

I wish I had that Bill Maher poster about it being your civic duty to speak out right now.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Doesn't change the fact that the thread is to discuss current anti-American feeling w.r.t. the Iraq situation as related to past history, and the Six Day War does not factor into that except in the most tangential way.

We did supply Israel during those conflicts, because the Arab states were supplied by the Soviets, and many Arabs consider that they would have succeeded in overrunning Israel were it not for that help. It's actually a source of considerable anger in not just the Arab world, but the muslim world--Pakistan even sent fighter pilots and jets for the Six Days War, and countries from Iraq to Algeria sent detachments of troops to participate. And they all lost. It was exceptionally humiliating not just to a few countries, but the whole region.

[MKSheppard]

For the last 50 Years, the Arab Street has been spewing hatred and vitrolic that would fit right in with press releases from www.stormfront.org, so I
don't give a damn if we invade them all, and forcibly democratize them
preferably by shooting their despotic leaders dead like we just did with
Uday and Qusay

[Darth Wong]

Too many more moderate Muslims accept this sort of thing, partly at least because they do have some real grievances with the United States, and they see these fringe groups of fanatics standing up to the American juggernaut, so they admire them for that. This is understandable, but they need to realize that regardless of their courage, one should not admire fanatical extremists, particularly ones that target innocent people for killing. It makes it harder to reach accomodation with your adversaries, since they will now have legitimate grounds to suspect you of extremismin your views. It also is generally a bad thing to let certain people's courage and strength of conviction blind you, or at least make you willing to overlook frankly despicable aspects of their character and methods.

But who says it's just underdog syndrome and admiration of extremists? Might they not be looking at the history and using that as the basis of their belief that the western powers simply want to subjugate the Arab world? Most violent people believe that the targets of their aggression "started it" or were about to. Why should the Muslims be an exception? I think they sincerely believe they're about to get steamrolled by the western nations for their resources, and I don't think the western world has done enough to contradict this idea. Wild-ass rhetoric about "fighting for freedom" doesn't cut it; the Europeans who fought the slavers of Algiers probably said the same thing.

[Bob McDob]

For the last 50 Years, the Arab Street has been spewing hatred and vitrolic that would fit right in with press releases from www.stormfront.org, so I
don't give a damn if we invade them all, and forcibly democratize them
preferably by shooting their despotic leaders dead like we just did with
Uday and Qusay

You can't ignore the concerns of an entire race by dismissing them wholescale as "hatred and vitriolic from Arab Street (where is Arab Street, anyway? New York?)

Wait, you're Shep. Never mind.

[Bob McDob]

Wild-ass rhetoric about "fighting for freedom" doesn't cut it; the Europeans who fought the slavers of Algiers probably said the same thing.

Agreed. I think everyone can agree GWB has not exactly been helpful on this point.

[MKSheppard]

Wait, you're Shep. Never mind.

Want me to quote radio transcripts from 1967 and compare them
to the same bullshit being spewed forth today from Arab state-run
radio stations ?

[Joe]

Arab Street is just a name for the various countries of the Arabic world. I guess, anyway.

[Bob McDob]

Want me to quote radio transcripts from 1967 and compare them
to the same bullshit being spewed forth today from Arab state-run
radio stations ?

Everybody Bullshits.

As to the part about "forcibly democratizing" the Arab world, I should ask people who support that to take a closer look at the relationship between slaves and masters. Most "liberation" has taken place on the belief that a slave wants to be free, but is too harshly oppressed to desire escape; this is not always the case. Often the slave and master have a symbiotic relationship where one is unable to survive without the other, and sometimes even would not want to. If any sort of "change" on the matter Westerners preach can come into being, the people's hearts must be changed first. Iran of all places has the greatest chance of this, I think.

"Forcible conversion" is what brought us such gems as "we had to destroy that village in order to save it".[/quote]

[MKSheppard]

Everybody Bullshits.

As to the part about "forcibly democratizing" the Arab world, I should ask people who support that to take a closer look at the relationship between slaves and masters. Most "liberation" has taken place on the belief that a slave wants to be free, but is too harshly oppressed to desire escape; this is not always the case. Often the slave and master have a symbiotic relationship where one is unable to survive without the other, and sometimes even would not want to. If any sort of "change" on the matter Westerners preach can come into being, the people's hearts must be changed first. Iran of all places has the greatest chance of this, I think.

"Forcible conversion" is what brought us such gems as "we had to destroy that village in order to save it".

What the fuck did this come from?

[Perinquus]

But who says it's just underdog syndrome and admiration of extremists? Might they not be looking at the history and using that as the basis of their belief that the western powers simply want to subjugate the Arab world? Most violent people believe that the targets of their aggression "started it" or were about to. Why should the Muslims be an exception? I think they sincerely believe they're about to get steamrolled by the western nations for their resources, and I don't think the western world has done enough to contradict this idea. Wild-ass rhetoric about "fighting for freedom" doesn't cut it; the Europeans who fought the slavers of Algiers probably said the same thing.

They may very well see things that way. We certainly ought to be trying to change their perception if that is so, but I'm not sure it will be possible to do that with words alone. It will certainly help our case if we can build a stable government in Iraq, and then move out of Iraq ourselves. I think it will have to be something like that. Deeds, rather than words will have to do our persuading for us.