Arab World Taking it Hard

[Richard G]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-10-arab-reaction_x.htm

Heres your shock and awe.

[Tmy]

The arab world is full of verbose blowhards. All talk. How many times do you hear hyperbolic threats from Arab leaders. "Our rivers will run red with the blood of infedels....bla bla bla". It's laughable. Truth is that they are no threat to anyone but themselves.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy
The arab world is full of verbose blowhards. All talk. How many times do you hear hyperbolic threats from Arab leaders. "Our rivers will run red with the blood of infedels....bla bla bla". It's laughable. Truth is that they are no threat to anyone but themselves.

What makes it even worse is that they say Allah is behind them, when in fact Allah loves America.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


What makes it even worse is that they say Allah is behind them, when in fact Allah loves America.

JK

Please prove the existance of Allah.

[daenku32]

"I don't like the idea of having the Americans here, but we asked for it," said Tannous Basil, a cardiologist in Sidon, Lebanon. "Why don't we see the Americans going to Finland, for example? They come here because our area is filled with dictatorships like Saddam's."

More importantly, Dictators who happen to dislike America, and might actually have the capabilities to do something. We really don't care about the dictators that benefit us financially.

[EvilYeti]

Looks like there is an Arab backlash, luckily its not against us!

[Number Six]

Reading some of the reaction from the Arab world makes me think the means of communication is different. I mean, do they really believe there was no resistance or is this a way of saving face? Iraq was getting the living crap pounded out of it for three weeks. Exactly how many people did they think would go to an almost certain death for a lousy regime?

I think rhetoric is used differently over there and so some of what they say just sounds odd to us. Did anyone see the Iraqi UN Ambassador on TV yesterday? For a long time this guy has been saying very inflammatory things, lots of bravado, etc. Yesterday, while literally smiling he said something like "The game is over. We just hope everyone gets peace." The rheotric from him hadn't been lessening lately, rather he simply shut it off as if it were a switch. It was strange.

Also, the TV guy kept saying "Has Iraq surrendered?" He was trying to get the Iraqi to admit defeat, which is kind of a "rub your face in it" bit. (This was a Fox reporter.) And the Iraqi wouldn't say it and that too might be a cultural thing...admitting surrender is something they want to avoid even if it's clear they've lost. The Iraqi wouldn't say they surrendered but rather said the game was over.

Didn't Saddam Hussein even proclaim that Iraq won the first Gulf War? And some of the things that Iraqi Information minister were more than just propaganda but rather simply things that nobody could actualy believe were true but he'd say them anyway. I think there is more behind it, like saying things for the sake of defending honor or saving face or whatever.

[Denise]

We don't know if the Iraqi ambassador was forced to say things by Saddam Hussein. I've read how he keeps his people in line by jailing members of their family and threats of violence, as well as actual violence.

[Baker]

I loved this quote!:D

"Now no one believes al-Jazeera anymore," he said, referring to the Arabic-language television news channel.

[Reginald]

I want to try and keep these comments on as level a base as possible.

Look at the ramifications for the region of this action.

1) Any leader may well question just how loyal his devoted followers are. Remember only last year Saddam claimed a 100% vote by his people.
2) One of the largest standing armies in the region, has been taken to pieces in just about 21 days. I wont say that the armies of other local states are in as bad condidtion but they must now realise just how out gunned they are. Which may lead them to think twice about..
3) Harbouring of terrorists, or provide support for same.

I agree there are concerns about the follow on administration of the country, but if you are a leader there at present, you wont be worrying about what happens to your country when you no longer run it.

[zakur]

Here's another one: Impotence, rage fuel opinions in Arab press (http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030409-23077093.htm)

[Skeptic]

"I don't like the idea of having the Americans here, but we asked for it," said Tannous Basil, a cardiologist in Sidon, Lebanon. "Why don't we see the Americans going to Finland, for example? They come here because our area is filled with dictatorships like Saddam's."

Actually, when lilly-white European countries like Germany and Russia were ruled by dictators, the US opposed, and even fought wars with, those dictators.

People who accuse the US of being "racist" because it only fights "people of color" seem to forget that the US only fights such people nowadays because a). it only fights dictatorships, and b). the US already destroyed all the dictatorships in "white" (that is, European) countries.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I don't like the idea of having the Americans here, but we asked for it," said Tannous Basil, a cardiologist in Sidon, Lebanon. "Why don't we see the Americans going to Finland, for example? They come here because our area is filled with dictatorships like Saddam's."

Actually, when lilly-white European countries like Germany and Russia were ruled by dictators, the US opposed, and even fought wars with, those dictators.

People who accuse the US of being "racist" because it only fights "people of color" seem to forget that the US only fights such people nowadays because a). it only fights dictatorships, and b). the US already destroyed all the dictatorships in "white" (that is, European) countries. I'm not sure of the ethics involved, but I've decided to interrupt your vigorous self-backslapping.

The US traded with and had diplomatic relations with Germany for years after it was ruled by a dictator and for years after it invaded neighboring countries. The US only got militarily involved in Europe after Germany declared war on the US.

And the US doesn't just "fight dictatorships". It fights against democratically elected governments as well (see South America).

Finally, this notion that the US destroyed Hitler, while persistent in the US, is yet another case of self-delusion. The US played a significant part in Nazi Germany's downfall, certainly. But no more than Russia's.

[Morwen]

Those of you who live in arab countries and know the culture better than I do, please correct me if I'm wrong, but... Isn't the concept of "saving face" an extremely important one to arabs? Same as their concept of hospitality is entirely different from, say, the one in the US, I had the feeling that their sens of honor, of self-esteem, is deeply ingrained, and they need to save face no matter what. I assume this is a generalization, of course, but nevertheless I think the trend is there. I'm more than willing to change this perception if provided with appropriate data.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Finally, this notion that the US destroyed Hitler, while persistent in the US, is yet another case of self-delusion. The US played a significant part in Nazi Germany's downfall, certainly. But no more than Russia's.

oh sure! you cant fool this american. next thing you'll tell us is that millions of russian soldiers died trying to defeat the nazi war machine!

ok, end sarcasm.

please stop your stereotyping of what americans think or believe. you appear to be wrong more often than not.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Finally, this notion that the US destroyed Hitler, while persistent in the US, is yet another case of self-delusion. The US played a significant part in Nazi Germany's downfall, certainly. But no more than Russia's.

Didn't Denmark spent spent all of WWII producing food, clothes and weapons for the Nazi's after surrendering to them without a fight? Until they were liberated by allied forces? What right do you have to criticize anything at all about America's role in WWII when your nation was too weak and cowardly to even TRY to defend itself from occupation?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...... yeesh.

[Richard G]

In hindsight I must compliment Al Jazeera on their coverage.

For 20 days it was "the US is being defeated, suffering massive casualties, look at their ineptness, our glorious Iraqi Arab bretheran under Saddam the All Powerful" etc.....

Right up until:

" ....oh, and by the way,.... the US is in the center of the city tearing down Saddam's statue, and the Iraqi leadership has fled and ....."


"Revenge is a dish best served cold."

There was nothing colder than Tuesday, April 9th.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Finally, this notion that the US destroyed Hitler, while persistent in the US, is yet another case of self-delusion. The US played a significant part in Nazi Germany's downfall, certainly. But no more than Russia's.

Unlike Russia, however, we didn't wait to be invaded by Germany. We didn't cynically split Eastern Europe with Hitler, either. We certainly could have sat on this side of the Atlantic and laughed off his declaration of war, rather than sending our boys over there to fight someone who had not yet attacked us. After all, we had Japan to fight.

I believe one could make a very good case that Russia would have eventually driven the Nazis out of all of their mainland European conquests, if America had not involved itself. I'm not quite sure how desirable that outcome would have been, however. Perhaps we should ask some Hungarians or Poles.

MattJ

[Drooper]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Finally, this notion that the US destroyed Hitler, while persistent in the US, is yet another case of self-delusion. The US played a significant part in Nazi Germany's downfall, certainly. But no more than Russia's.

I seem to be going blind. Either that or your are Danish.

Could you point out to me where precisely in this thread does anybody suggest that "the US destroyed Hitler"?

Time to brush that chip off your shoulder.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
"I don't like the idea of having the Americans here, but we asked for it," said Tannous Basil, a cardiologist in Sidon, Lebanon. "Why don't we see the Americans going to Finland, for example? They come here because our area is filled with dictatorships like Saddam's."

Actually, when lilly-white European countries like Germany and Russia were ruled by dictators, the US opposed, and even fought wars with, those dictators.

People who accuse the US of being "racist" because it only fights "people of color" seem to forget that the US only fights such people nowadays because a). it only fights dictatorships, and b). the US already destroyed all the dictatorships in "white" (that is, European) countries.

Not quite true, it fights the dictatorships it disapproves and, and is quite happy to support the ones it approves of.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
In hindsight I must compliment Al Jazeera on their coverage.

For 20 days it was "the US is being defeated, suffering massive casualties, look at their ineptness, our glorious Iraqi Arab bretheran under Saddam the All Powerful" etc.....

Right up until:

" ....oh, and by the way,.... the US is in the center of the city tearing down Saddam's statue, and the Iraqi leadership has fled and ....."


"Revenge is a dish best served cold."

There was nothing colder than Tuesday, April 9th.

don't provide "quotes" unless your can show them. Paraphrasing is OK, but make clear that it is your interpretation.

From the little I saw of Al Jazeera, they did not say those things. They certainly go in for blood and gore, but they did this on both sides.

[LW]

Originally posted by Drooper


Could you point out to me where precisely in this thread does anybody suggest that "the US destroyed Hitler"?

Well, Skeptic wrote that: "the US already destroyed all the dictatorships in "white" (that is, European) countries." Of course, not being a mind-reader I can't really know what he meant about it but my guess is that Hitler is included in the "all dictators".

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]People who accuse the US of being "racist" because it only fights "people of color" seem to forget that the US only fights such people nowadays because a). it only fights dictatorships, and b). the US already destroyed all the dictatorships in "white" (that is, European) countries.
That may be overstating the case, but your point is well taken. I can't remember where this observation was made first, but what with traipsing around the globe trying to save (with varying degrees of effectiveness) Somalian Muslims, Kuwaiti Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Kosovar Muslims and now Iraqi Muslims, it should be evident to any objective observer that the U.S armed forces are the planet's pre-eminent and hardest-working defender of Muslims.

[DanishDynamite]

HarryKeogh:oh sure! you cant fool this american. next thing you'll tell us is that millions of russian soldiers died trying to defeat the nazi war machine!

ok, end sarcasm.

please stop your stereotyping of what americans think or believe. Technically, I wasn’t stereotyping. I said that a particular notion was ”persistent” in the US. The notion that John Edwards can communicate with the dead is also persistent. That doesn’t imply that everyone believes it.
you appear to be wrong more often than not.Care to expand on that?

EvilYeti:Didn't Denmark spent spent all of WWII producing food, clothes and weapons for the Nazi's after surrendering to them without a fight? Denmark traded with Germany for most of the occupation (there was little choice). However, multiple general strikes and the actions of the resistance (some 10, 000 bombings over the 5 year occupation) reduced the amount and type of goods going to Germany.
Until they were liberated by allied forces? What right do you have to criticize anything at all about America's role in WWII when your nation was too weak and cowardly to even TRY to defend itself from occupation? Now, see, this is exactly the type of comment which is overrepresented in this forum. The idea seems to be that citizens of countries liberated by the Allies under WWII have no right to point out ”negative” facts about said Allies or, in fact, have no right to have opinions differing from official US policy, ever. ”Gratitude means servitude” seems to be a common sentiment.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...... yeesh. Talk about thin skinned.

aerocontrols: Unlike Russia, however, we didn't wait to be invadedby Germany. We didn't cynically split Eastern Europe with Hitler, either. We certainly could have sat on this side of the Atlantic and laughed off his declaration of war, rather than sending our boys over there to fight someone who had not yet attacked us. After all, we had Japan to fight.German subs were sinking US ships by the dozens. No, I doubt you could laugh off the war declaration.
I believe one could make a very good case that Russia would have eventually driven the Nazis out of all of their mainland European conquests, if America had not involved itself. I'm not quite sure how desirable that outcome would have been, however. Perhaps we should ask some Hungarians or Poles.I praise my lucky stars (or I would if I believed in astrology) that Denmark was not ”liberated” by Russia, but by the Allies. I wasn’t born at the time, but still: Thank you, USA. Now, must I censor my opinions based on what took place 50 years ago, or can I speak my mind?

Drooper: I seem to be going blind. Either that or your are Danish.

Could you point out to me where precisely in this thread does anybody suggest that "the US destroyed Hitler"? See LW’s answer upstream.
Time to brush that chip off your shoulder. Time for the ”America can do no wrong” types to get educated.

[c0rbin]

German subs were sinking US ships by the dozens.

Thank goodness they didn't have bicycles.

:rolleyes:

Tell me. What is Denmark doing about opression in the world?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite


aerocontrols:German subs were sinking US ships by the dozens. No, I doubt you could laugh off the war declaration.

This is laugh-out-loud funny. Why exactly were they sinking American ships, again? They didn't like the paint scheme? Did it perhaps have something to do with where those ships were going and what they were carrying?

Explain to me exactly why we could not have chosen to stay out of that war. It seems to me that it would have been rather easy to avoid having our ships attacked by German subs.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I praise my lucky stars (or I would if I believed in astrology) that Denmark was not ”liberated” by Russia, but by the Allies. I wasn’t born at the time, but still: Thank you, USA. Now, must I censor my opinions based on what took place 50 years ago, or can I speak my mind?

Censor yourself or not, I don't care. What makes you think that I do? Did I ask you to shut up?

Perhaps you'll understand, however, if I feel I must respond when I hear that my nation's contribution and the Nazi-collaborating Soviet Union's contribution to defeating Germany were essentially equal.

MattJ

[DanishDynamite]

c0rbin:Thank goodness they didn't have bicycles.

:rolleyes: I knew I should never have mentioned that. :)
Tell me. What is Denmark doing about opression in the world? Well, we are the only EU country to have allocated military forces to the current war on Iraq. We have troops in the former Yugoslavia. We have troops in Afghanistan. We have a foreign aid policy based (in part) on ethics.

Edited to add: When I said "the only EU country", I of course meant "aside from the UK".

[DanishDynamite]

aerocontrols: This is laugh-out-loud funny. Why exactly were they sinking American ships, again? They didn't like the paint scheme? Did it perhaps have something to do with where those ships were going and what they were carrying?

Explain to me exactly why we could not have chosen to stay out of that war. It seems to me that it would have been rather easy to avoid having our ships attacked by German subs.Sure, some of the American ships in the Atlantic were bringing supplies to the UK. However, the subs didn't differentiate between trade ships, passenger ships and "war supplies" ships.

In any case, a country had declared war on the US. They were experimenting with rockets and nuclear technology. How, in your wildest dreams, do you think the US could just have sat back and relaxed?
Censor yourself or not, I don't care. What makes you think that I do? Did I ask you to shut up?

Perhaps you'll understand, however, if I feel I must respond when I hear that my nation's contribution and the Nazi-collaborating Soviet Union's contribution to defeating Germany were essentially equal.I can understand that you wish to respond. Can you understand that I do?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
aerocontrols: Sure, some of the American ships in the Atlantic were bringing supplies to the UK. However, the subs didn't differentiate between trade ships, passenger ships and "war supplies" ships.

In any case, a country had declared war on the US. They were experimenting with rockets and nuclear technology. How, in your wildest dreams, do you think the US could just have sat back and relaxed?

It seems to me that Germany did not fire on every ship in the Atlantic Ocean. Did not a great many countries conduct trade in the Atlantic without getting fired upon? Could we not have emulated them? If we were not substantially different than the Russia you compared us to, I suspect we would have.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

I can understand that you wish to respond. Can you understand that I do?

:rolleyes:

You asked if you must 'censor your opinions' in respons to my suggestion of no such thing. I essentially replied to this question with a 'no' and offered up that if you present your opinions, they will be examined by those who disagree, as if you needed any reminding of that. Perhaps the fact that I said it means I believe it applies universally. Or perhaps I really do think that you should shut up so that I can spout off at will. Is that what you see coming from my posts?

MattJ

[DanishDynamite]

aerocontrols:It seems to me that Germany did not fire on every ship in the Atlantic Ocean. Did not a great many countries conduct trade in the Atlantic without getting fired upon? Could we not have emulated them? If we were not substantially different than the Russia you compared us to, I suspect we would have. While I don't know the details regarding how captains of Nazi subs decided which ship to sink, I don't see how you can seriously think that the US could avoid getting involved, when the largest and militarily most advanced country in Europe had declared war on you?
:rolleyes:

You asked if you must 'censor your opinions' when I suggested no such thing. I essentially said 'no' and offered up that if you present your opinions, they will be examined by those who disagree, as if you needed any reminding of that. Perhaps the fact that I said it means I believe it applies universally. Or perhaps I really do think that you should shut up so that I can spout off at will. Is that what you see coming from my posts?Sorry, aero. I was in "defense" mode, and didn't quite differentiate between my opponents. Your only comment relevant to "free speech" was the "perhaps we should ask some Hungarians or Poles" comment. A comment which I have already answered.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


don't provide "quotes" unless your can show them. Paraphrasing is OK, but make clear that it is your interpretation.

From the little I saw of Al Jazeera, they did not say those things. They certainly go in for blood and gore, but they did this on both sides.

Sorry to question your fellow anti-Israel propagandist allies Al Jazeera but They quoted the Iraqi Information minister word by word why do you think the Arabs where so shocked by the fall of Baghdad and why they are all saying they will never believe Al Jazeera again?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
aerocontrols:While I don't know the details regarding how captains of Nazi subs decided which ship to sink, I don't see how you can seriously think that the US could avoid getting involved, when the largest and militarily most advanced country in Europe had declared war on you?

What I'm suggesting is that we could, had we truly not been 'involved' in the war until Germany declared war on us, have easily avoided their declaration of war. Poland was partitioned by Germany and the USSR. The US signs a 'neutrality act' which allows US companies to send arms to Britain and France 6 days later. A week before France falls, Roosevelt shifts from Neutrality to "non-beligerance" allowing even more active support for the allies against the Axis. Further, the US institutes a peacetime draft for the first time in history. Nearly a year before we are attacked by Japan, we begin the Lend-lease shipments. Two days after Hitler invades Russia, the US promises Russia aid... I could go on, DD, but it seems clear to me what I meant when I said we could have avoided war with Germany.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sorry, aero. I was in "defense" mode, and didn't quite differentiate between my opponents. Your only comment relevant to "free speech" was the "perhaps we should ask some Hungarians or Poles" comment. A comment which I have already answered.

I understand. Quite a few people replied to your remarks, some more reasonably than others.

MattJ