'They hate our policies, not our freedom'

And remember, the general rule of thumb in the Middle East is that their Duty to Allah supersedes their duty to international hand-holding.

*chuckles* Well while many of the extremists certainly fall in that category Psych the moderates which are still the majority in the Arab world do not.

That's about the most accurate statement I've heard w\regard to the issue.

I'm not sure what they see about Jordan, Pakistan and Egypt being "tyrannies"
but I do know that for years Al-Qaeda and similar groups have wanted to
replace the Saudi Royals with a more hardline state, much like the Taliban
allegedly wants to have a statehood modelled after their imagined version
of what Arabia was like when Muhammad was alive in the 7th century (this
quoted from a book called "Taliban" that I read recently.) Extremist groups
see the Saudis as decadent for their lifestyles and therefore, as we all know the
score, their (the extremists) version of Islam preaches death to the infidel with
no chance of redemption or forgivness. Seems to be a running pattern the extremists
adhere to in the 3 basic monotheistic religious systems of the Mideast...

Only in America is common sense newsworthy.

Next: The flu isn't getting vengeance for its dead parents.

Yeah, and replace Allah with the Hebrew word for God and you have the official policy of Israel. Funny how that works out like that.

Not necessarily. Israel was founded as a jewish state, but, to the chagrin of many orthodox Jews, is trying to be a secular as possible.

"they hate our freedom" is the 21st-century equivalent to "communists eat babies"

Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.

This is such evident common-sense, only in the US media is this an issue at all.

Zionism, which is still the law of the land in Israel, is almost entirely derived from religious text.

About the Jewish part, I'm actually not very well versed on how things work with Judaism as far as submission to the will of God; however, in Islam, a true follower is first and formost a slave (yes, a slave - and everything that entails) to the purposes of Allah. However they interpret this purpose is their business (and usually the business of whoever can get the most ppl to listen to him), but whenever an interpretation is decided on, it is generally considered the "Will of Allah" and is therefore, especially in places like Saudi Arabia where the monarchy isn't necessarily in charge - it's the theocratic mullahs, determined to be law.

100% pure, unadulterated simple-minded bullshit.

True, but Israel is hardly a theocracy by any stretch.

Replace "Middle East" with "decadent West", and "Duty to Allah" with "duty to capitalism", and you've got precisely the sort of rhetoric that is used to drum up Islamic hatred aimed at us.

I seriously doubt you know enough about Islam and the Middle East to draw a "general rule of thumb" about anything.

Among other things.

There are as many reasons as there are terrorists. For some it's political, for others it's cultural, for others it's intellectual. But the notion that they "hate freedom" is such obvious rhetoric that it sickens me to see it used by leaders on our side.

That the terrorists in question are comfortingly "alien" to us just makes it easier to project two-dimensional motivations on them.

In decades of Irish terrorism, the IRA were never once labelled a Catholic terror organisation even though that was at the very core of what they stood for.

When people look different, and talk different, it's too easy to dehumanise them. Falling into that trap benefits nobody - least of all ourselves - because by simplifying them, we underestimate and misunderstand them.

While technically Israel is a democracy, it is only one at the service of the Jewish ethnicity. The hardliners have had a tight grip over the country since its inception. And any PM who appears to appease the center will have his life threatened by extremists. Not that the other side is any better, but my point is that Israel proclaiming herself a democracy has allowed her to get away with (in the US) all sorts of appalling behavior.

And let's be honest... The reason Sharon built the wall and withdrew from a few select settlements was primarily two-fold: security (which is an acceptable reason) and to prevent Palestinian majorities within territorial Israel from voting in non-Jews and centrists to parliamentary positions. Palestinian rights was all the way at the bottom of the list. I suppose we should be grateful that they didn't keep the land and kill off the Arabs.

You know...actually...I'm not trying to put down Islamic nations and peoples because of their "duty to Allah"

On the contrary, I think that it is an admirable quality as far as morals and ethics will take you...however, on the international level, it doesn't make many people happy.

And yes, the same is true for the "decadent West" and our "duty to capitalism," our greedy and money-loving nature sways our actions (even military actions) into a pursuit of profit, regardless of who is stepped on along the way. (Sounds a lot like any major corporation not only in the "decadent West" but also in Japan, China, Korea, Europe, etc...)

The difference is that the majority of the world agrees with a duty to capitalism, because the rest of the world likes the idea of making money; therefore, this point is moot, as the majority of the world does not associate itself with the Islamic "Duty to Allah."

Again, I don't think that the Islamic ideal that every Muslim is a slave to Allah is wrong; I am simply stating that "Yes, this is an idea that Muslims are taught from a very young age." and "Yes, for the most part, this is a major factor in the decision-making process in the Muslim world."

When there are 6 billion people and 1 billion of them are muslim I think thats no small minority.

Last time I checked, 16.6% was a minority...

Not really. The point isn't how many people agree with, or go along with, one or the other way of life. The point is when you say "Muslims duty to Allah supercedes their ability to work internationally" you're making a broad generalisation that is no more true than the anti-West equivalent spouted by Islamic extremists.

Muslims - and muslim countries - are just as capable of being productive and valuable members of the global community as Westerners - and Western nations - are capable of being benevolent.

I was not saying that either was capable/incapable of cooperation in either context, merely stating that their "inner drive" (in the case of Western culture) and their religious demands (in the case of Middle Eastern culture) will, traditionally speaking, lead them to certain trends that, I believe, have already been enacted and followed by nations in the past and nations presently.

You said it, man. Same old propaganda, new faces and times. Their scumbags are just the same as any other scumbags..place a face, place a blame, and off you go. Islamic terrorism is in essence the new form of gang membership and it's spreading like wildfire. And you heard Al-Zawarhi the other day-"Bush, Kerry, or the devil himslef, we will fight you to the end." So with regard to policies and all, we can see now that Christianity and Bushim are not the only 2 religions that practice the "join or die" mentality.

Holy shit, is Bushism already a religion?

I'm getting out of this planet.

That's such horseshit PsYcH. Since when is everyone on this planet for capitalism except muslims?? That's exactly the narrow minded crap we get from too many Americans, who are too ignorant of the rest of the world and never really think from a global perspective. First of all, China is not capitalistic, another 1.2 billions. India? I don't know, I guess at least partly. Would be another 500 mio - 1 billion. What about Africa??

In the end it will be difficult to prove that even a 50% majority is capitalistic, not to speak a vast majority. At the moment it might be Europe, America (North and South), Australia and some smaller parts of Asia/Africa.

I don't think we should get hung up on "capitalism" here. Capitalism is not at odds with Islam. Indeed, a great many Muslims in the UK are the driving force behind our economy. Islam imposes certain restrictions on how business may be carried out (many of which I think we'd all like to see implemented - including making it forbidden to charge interest) but it is not in any way an oppositional force to that of capitalism.

Therefore, yes, countries like India and much of Africa are capitalist by definition in so much as they trade products and services both internally and internationally.

The problem comes when you have the aggressively expansionist form of capitalism seen in the West, a global force that is largely western-led (and within that subset largely US-led) yet affects the whole world. A better term for this might be "corporatism", as it has long since evolved past the point of a simple exchange of goods and has become something more voracious.

That such a insatiable drive to own and consume is now at the heart of the West's role in the world - that is what brings us into conflict with hardline Islam.

Oh, I'm certainly not saying that all the tensions between East and West can be blamed on "corporatism" - as you say, we've been prodding that hornets nest for centuries - but it's certainly a major cause of our current problems. One of the main reasons we maintain a military presence over there (and therefore one of the reasons people like Bin Laden have a problem with us) is because we need the leverage to maintain a steady flow of fossil fuel into our gaping maw.

It's not even that. I don't know about the United Kingdom, but the United States gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. America's Middle Eastern Foreign Oil Policy is not about access, it's about control.

Well, yeah. That's what I mean. It's not about normal consumption of goods, it's a voracious compulsion to own, control and consume - regardless of need.

You ever play with Hot Wheels cars as a kid? ever use a Sony product? ...there are others, but that list is waaay too long...on the bottom you'll notice these words: "Made in China"

...no...China's not capitalistic...

fair enough, i guess we define capitalism differently. i wouldn't call a country capitalistic just because they produce products for industrialised, capitalistic countries. the reason for this is just because labour is much cheaper there.

one of many definitions:
an economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. The market determines the type, quantity, and price of goods. the government is to avoid interfering in the economy.

for me, China definitely is not there yet (i.e. free market, open competition, government etc.), probably in 10-20 years. re India, i just think a country which still is mostly engaged in agriculture, can't be seen as capitalistic.

however, all an issue of definition.

Not necessarily...the world is not black and white and things are traditionally much more than definition tends to limit them...

I know this is a generalized statement, but I don't really feel like card-stacking my data (not accusing...I'm just not in the mood anymore).

Uhh, gezundheit?

Fascinating.

No, really.

ok, I was like, "What's Amerada? is that some kind of trade organization?"

What's the "Hess" part?

oh duh...uggh!

sorry Yals Nyc