Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Why Do They Hate Us? (Part 1)

If you have been reading the news lately, you might get the impression that Muslims, as a group, don't like Americans very much. Or at least the ones who live in the Middle East. Considering it is such a large group (1.5 billion people) it would be foolish to generalize them in any way, shape or form. Not even counting such sects as the Ba'hais, Muslims who (a) don't take their religion super seriously and (b) don't care much about international relations don't have strong feelings towards America.

However, in such left-wing websites as the Huffington Post, we sometimes see what I call the "Radical Muslim Two-Step," which is where someone claims no! Not all Muslims hate us, don't stereotype, Islamophobe! But then they immediately turn around and say, okay yes all Muslims do hate us but it is our fault for being so evil. I personally think that both are wrong, but today Qasim Rashid is telling us the second.

Let's see what Mr. Rashid has to say. He says "the question is not at all why they hate us, but why we don't get it." Now I think when he says "us" he means "Americans," and when he says "they," he means "Muslims," but I'm not sure seeing as how he introduces himself as an American-Muslim. Whew. Anyway he brings up 9/11 of course but then says that more than thirty years ago America helped overthrow Pincohet in Chile. If you're waiting to hear what that has to do with Muslims, don't bother because he doesn't explain it. Instead, it's time to lie:
"Many of age Americans remember March 20, 2003, the day America preemptively invaded and obliterated Iraq to unseat dictator Saddam Hussein--while killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Fewer, however, remember the December 1983 meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and Hussein, designed to emphasize America's "close relationship" with Iraq as an ally. The regime America destroyed in 2003, American tax dollars built two decades prior."
No legitimate historian thinks that America "killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians." In fact according to Iraq Body Count Dot Org:

The majority by far of attacks that killed Iraqi civilians were perpetrated either by Iraqi security forces or insurgents, certainly in the post invasion period:

No matter which way you slice it, this claim that "100,000 civilians killed by the US" is a straight up lie. No surprise that in order to justify hatred, Mr. Rashid feels it is necessary to tell something beyond the whole truth.

As for this meeting between Rumsfeld and Hussein, it was to provide aid to help Iraq against Iran. Nowhere did anyone say that America and Iraq were allies. Nor is there any evidence that America helped Saddam attain power, and even if they had, so what? Are the people of Iraq not responsible for their own lives and welfare? The people of Egypt and Libya were able to overthrow their governments  But let's not get too sidetracked, the point is that Mr. Rashid is not telling the truth.

Now it's time for the dictator two step:
"Few Americans remember that America long supported Libya's dictator Moammar Gaddafi before citing democracy to wash our hands clean. We championed Egypt's dictator Hosni Mubarak before demanding his arrest and conviction. We supported Pakistan's dictator General Zia--who helped Talibanize Pakistan and was the brainchild of Pakistan's infamous blasphemy laws that suffocate free speech."
As I said in the earlier post, when it comes to dictators America is in a no win scenario. Take Bashir Assad. America isn't supporting him, but he's in power and committing terrible crimes against his people. I follow a lot of Syrian activists on Twitter and more than a few of them are raging against America for not coming to "save them." But if America did get involved in Syria we would then immediately be accused of "imperialism" or whatever nice code word people are using right now. No matter which decision we make, America is stirring up "Muslim hatred."

You might notice, however, that Mr. Rashid and the Muslims he supposed speaks for don't appear to be bothered by the slaughter of civilians in Syria. But can you imagine the rage if it was Israel doing what Assad was doing? This seems to give credence to my earlier theory that it is not the actions of America (what Mr. Rashid is trying to play up in his article) but rather what America is, i.e. a state not populated principally by Muslims that it is also strong and successful.

Finally, he starts to get to the point:
"So why do "they" hate us? It should be obvious by now. Opportunistic clerics find little difficulty pointing to this suspect American government foreign policy as examples of the American people worldview. Citizens of such nations view anti-Islam propaganda emerging from the United States as stemming from the US. government itself--not private citizens. Thus, the U.S. Embassy in Libya needed to actively disassociate from the vitriol spewed in Innocence of Muslims--not to apologize for free speech, but to clearly demonstrate that they did not endorse the message conveyed."
Oh, so the reason why they hate us is because "opportunistic clerics" take advantage of real world examples to spew their hatred. And the average Muslim has to listen to them....why exactly? Ditto with what he calls "anti-Muslim propaganda," but what the rest of us might refer to as "satire." Why is it the US government's responsibility to explain to Muslims half a million miles away that we "don't endorse" things that offend them? Why can't they just be intelligent enough to understand that on their own? Clearly Mr. Rashid got it, and I refuse to hold anyone else to a higher standard.

However by the same token, you can't go on and on and on about American foreign policy and then this is just about a video. If it is about the video then why even bring up American foreign policy. And if it's about American foreign policy than why bring the video into it? The video is just a pathetic deflection on both sides of the issue: maybe it's about America's policies, or maybe it's because radical Islam wants Americans dead. We will explore that very issue in the next post.

1 comment:

  1. The reason given by Margaret Thatcher's government for not overthrowing Saddam was that his son Uday would take over and he was considered much worse than his father.

    That doesn't exactly show any liking for Saddam.


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.