What Is It We Did To The Muslim World?

Via Amanda Carpenter at Townhall linking to this item.

Obama to "Reboot" Relations with Muslim World

I get it, ... okay?

Still, from the Marines in Lebanon, the USS Cole, 9/11 ... to Mumbai, among many other issues and incidents, not to forget our sacrificing to liberate millions of Muslims in Iraq and Bush's careful rhetoric all along ... what the Hell is it we did to the Muslim world that requires us to improve our image? And what does he intend to do to "reboot" the image of Muslims to many fair minded Americans who look at world events and wonder what the Hell is wrong with some number of them?

Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital.

And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama.

"I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,'' Obama said Tuesday, promising an "unrelenting" desire to "create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together."

The world, he said, "is ready for that message."

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

The word "image" is very useful, though those who try to use it to mean "reputation" damn themselves in my eyes. Image is created through advertising and propaganda, reputation is earned through actions. Obama's use of "image" here is very telling. The Muslims who are enemies of ours will laugh at attempts to improve our image. Those of "good will", as Obama puts it, don't need to be propagandized.
I hope Obama in his speech to Muslims will emphasize our government's efforts to protect Muslims in the Balkins and resist the temptation to BS by being "full of high sentence but a bit obtuse" (T. S. Eliot).
http://www.metafilter.com/64293/Full-of-high-sentence-but-a-bit-obtuse

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Still, from the Marines in Lebanon, the USS Cole, 9/11 ... to Mumbai, among many other issues and incidents, not to forget our sacrificing to liberate millions of Muslims in Iraq and Bush's careful rhetoric all along ... what the Hell is it we did to the Muslim world that requires us to improve our image? --"

History FAIL.

Chalk one up to Dan not having a clue about US History of Foreign Policy.

Some folks ask a question in seriousness and then proceed to investigate the answer. Others pose the question rhetorically, then assume they know the answer (in this case, American is innocent as a newborn babe! they only hate us for our Freedom!) and go on a bullshitting spree to rival a Bush Press Conference.

What did we do to the Muslim world? Here are some fun topics to Google:

Israel, Palestine
First Iraq War
Second Iraq War
Iraq-Iran War, Reagen, weapons sales
Military bases in Saudi Arabia
Shah of Iran
Formation of OPEC
Colonization of the Middle East, Fall of the Ottoman Empire

Learn your history and the US involvement in any or all of these historical events. Perhaps you will learn something from them. But I doubt it.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"What Is It We Did To The Muslim World?"

Supported the existance of Israel.

All Obie has to do is "relocate" the Israelis and everyone will love us

[SacTownMan]

Until the free world starts to understand the concept of the "Worldwide Caliphate" that these camel jockies have in mind for us we will never get to the root of the problem.

For the soon-to-be leader of the free world to not understand the real threat to the free world is laughable!

Submit or die, I think I'll pass thanks!

[jharp]

"What Is It We Did To The Muslim World?"

Not the least bit surprised at this lack of understanding.

What to expect when our idiot in chief repeats that they hate us for our freedom.

[Anon]

The worldwide caliphate is something that crazy right wingers made up in their own minds, it has nothing to do with 99.9% of the world's muslims.

The ONLY thing that is really going to warm Muslims up to the U.S. again is progress on the Israeli Palestinian issue or some sense that U.S. policy will become more even handed in that regard, and I very much doubt OBama has the cajones for that one.

However, given that the Iraq War hasn't really played too well in the Arab world...that whole 'liberating millions' didn't really gain any traction outside GOP/neocon circles..it is a good idea for Obama to try and reframe things on a more positive note.

[Fred Beloit]

Moe and Harpo, weren't the Moors who conquered and subjected large swaths of Europe Muslims?
Didn't Saddam start the first Iraq war when he invaded (dirty surprise attack) Kuwait?

[IslamoLlama]

"-- What to expect when our idiot in chief repeats that they hate us for our freedom. --"

It was the most inane and ignorant of claims, and I'm a little ashamed for buying into it even in the "Bash All Muslims" heyday of late 2001. The least bit of introspection - Bin Laden spells out exactly why he launched the 9/11 attacks - details this attack as retaliation for maintaining military bases in Saudi Arabia and for military campaigns in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and assorted African nations.

The single biggest attack on the US since Pearl Harbor, accompanied by a laundry list of detailed grievances, and here we are seven years later with Dan - head firmly between ass cheeks - pondering the mysteries of the terrorist mind. "What's their problem anyway? They've certainly never complained before now. We have a sterling record with the Middle East."

Now, I invite the wingnut commentatorship to leap in and accuse me of being a terrorist sympathizer. After all, acknowledging the existence of a complaint is exactly the same as caving to the "Worldwide Caliphate". But I would really like you to sit down and ask yourself the question, "Is our nation getting along well with the Middle East?" Then, I want you to open up a map and point to all the countries we have bombed or been bombed by in the last eight years. Then ask yourself that question again a little more seriously.

[skylights]

I'll second what IslamoLlama said. This is pretty freakin' obvious unless you're one of those morons Leno has on his "Jaywalking" segments.

[jharp]

"Didn't Saddam start the first Iraq war when he invaded (dirty surprise attack) Kuwait?"

Yes, you could say that. However it is a dramatic over simplification.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Moe and Harpo, weren't the Moors who conquered and subjected large swaths of Europe Muslims? --"

When you've got to go back over 800 years to make a point...

"-- Didn't Saddam start the first Iraq war when he invaded (dirty surprise attack) Kuwait? --"

Saddam invaded Kuwait in retaliation against oil companies who were slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. The slant drilling was in response to Saddam's nationalization of his country's oil fields. The nationalization was in response to oil giants failing to pay agreed upon prices for drilling rights. The failure to pay was a result oil companies considering Saddam "in the pocket" of Reagen and Bush when they were funding the Iraq-Iran war. Reagen and Bush sponsored the Iran-Iraq war by selling military hardware to Saddam in order to pay off the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. And, if I'm not mistaken, that was a scandal that brought down Oliver North. Iraq itself was in and out of revolution all through the 60s and the CIA aided Saddam's Ba'th in putting down a Communist uprising in the south, which ties Iraq all the way back into the Cold War. And we can detail the various British-American dealings in the Middle East during the Cold War for days. Needless to say, when you've got two superpowers maneuvering over control of the world's oil capitals, a lot of bad shit goes down that either the CIA or the KGB or both can easily take the blame for.

So, in short, yes the first Iraq War was in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. No, the US was not innocent in the affair (in fact, that's part of why Bush Sr bucked his own party and launched Desert Shield - he felt guilty for letting Kuwait take shit over US meddling). And, in fact, if you wonder where Saddam got the army to invade Kuwait to begin with, you need only check the receipts. We sold large chunks of it to him. Something that, I imagine, pisses off the Kuwaits a little bit.

[Fred Beloit]

Someone said, "Yes, you could say that [that Saddam surprise attacked Kuwait]. However it is a dramatic over simplification."
However, no. It is a simple statement of a fact.

"The Persian Gulf War or Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991)[6][7] was a United Nations-authorized military conflict between Iraq and a coalition force from 34 nations[8] commissioned with expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait after Iraq's occupation and annexation of Kuwait in August of 1990. Though there were nearly three dozen member states of the coalition, the overwhelming majority of the military forces participating were from the United States and the United Kingdom.
The invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi troops was met with immediate economic sanctions against Iraq by some members of the UN Security Council, and with immediate preparation for war by the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait began in January 1991 and was a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which took over Kuwait and entered Iraqi territory. Aerial and ground combat was confined to Iraq, Kuwait, and bordering areas of Saudi Arabia."

[Fred Beloit]

Moe gets his "history" from The Iran Chamber. No wonder Moe has such odd ideas. The Iran Chamber lists some incidents, they omit listing others. Ho hum.

Anon says: "The worldwide caliphate is something that crazy right wingers made up in their own minds, it has nothing to do with 99.9% of the world's muslims."
Anon, you need to see "Obsession" playing in living rooms near you and read more about what our enemies want.

Moe again: "Bin Laden spells out exactly why he launched the 9/11 attacks...as retaliation for maintaining military bases in Saudi Arabia and for military campaigns in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and assorted African nations."

So you also get your historical knowledge from Osama bin-Laden, Moe? Osama lists incidents and omits others, just as The Iran Chamber (of commerce?) does, for example, Saudi Arabia invites us to have bases there. When did we ever attack Egypt? What assorted African nations did we attack? The Muzzies attacked innocent athletes at a world olympics long long before Osama stopped wearing jockeys and started wearing diapers. Were we wrong to be upset about it? Please.

[Fred Beloit]

Moe: "And, in fact, if you wonder where Saddam got the army to invade Kuwait to begin with, you need only check the receipts. We sold large chunks of i t[war materiel] to him."

Iran Chamber selectivity again, Moe? You do like that omission jive, don't you? Now why would we have supplied Saddam with weaponry, Moe, why? Because Saddam was fighting a war with Iran, the same Iran who had taken about 100 Americans hostage and kept them until the election of Reagan scared the crap out of them.

[SpaceCat]

"our sacrificing to liberate millions of Muslims in Iraq and Bush's careful rhetoric all along"

Ha ha ha. Comedy gold!
Man, you wingtards are on another planet.

[Anon]

Facts are facts, the fact is that there are a lot of reasons why Muslims don't like the U.S., we could argue all day about the whys and the hows, it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

The reason why Americans were taken hostage in the first place is because it was Americans that put the Shah of Iran in power to begin with and turned a blind eye to his abuse of his people.

[Fred Beloit]

Anon, you are forgetting about 7 and 4/5ths thousand years of Iran's history, but they do not forget.

"This soil is what Yaqub Leis Saffarid the savior and liberator of Iran who put an end to 222 years of Arab supremacy of Iran, used to worship! This soil is what Nader Shah Afsharid used to swear upon it. This soil is what Hakim Abol Qasem Ferdowsi Tusi, the reviver of the Persian Language; the Iranian Shakespeare poet used to value and cherish. This soil is what my ancestors prayed to. This soil is what I bow to and what I kiss, for ever and ever more..... You best recognize what is the meaning of the true Nationalism.
Many are schooled, yet only a few are truly educated! Many know their history; many learned about their history, some half way and some all the way. Many saw the conflict, many realized that Arabo-Islamic forces invaded us about 1400 years ago and destroyed every shred of our Aryan Culture, our Persian Culture; yet, when we kicked them out, and put an end to their 222 years of colonialism, we continued worshiping their God (Allah), their way of life, their traditions, and their sub-culture.
We celebrated their holidays like Eyd-e Qorban and Fetr; we mourned during the death anniversaries of their leaders, the same leaders who killed and slaughtered Persians and our ancestors by the dozens and by the thousands, like Ali, Hassan, Hussein, and others..... We worshiped their prophet Mohammed whose very evil plans ruined our Persian Empire, our way of life, and our Persian heritage. What species other than Persians worship their oppressors, their executioners? Hard to find such species indeed! How did this happen? What were the roots of these problems?

May you be enlightened here, Anon, and forfeit your selectivity.
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/library/english-library/8000-years1/index.htm

[Anon]

I don't see what the culture of Iran/Persia has to do with a discussion of U.S. machinations in the ME. The reality is that the Iranians/Persians widely blamed the U.S. for the Shah's atrocities. The reality is that for whatever reason we changed alliances and Iraq was a friend and then an enemy. The reailty is that if not for U.S. support of Israel, the Arabs nemesisis, it would probably not exist, it certainly would not have the capability to invade/bomb and otherwise menance its neighbors.

It isn't a matter of being selective, its a matter of realistically looking at the Arab world and what THEY think and WHY they think it, not what you or anyone else thinks they should think or interpret history. It doesn't matter what our aims were either, it matters what the result was for the Arabs and how they perceive things.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- So you also get your historical knowledge from Osama bin-Laden, Moe? --"

???
Are you claiming there are no military bases in Saudi Arabia or that the US Government doesn't supply material aid to Israel, Turkey, or Jordan?
???

I'm confused. Are you claiming that Osama Bin Laden is complaining about made up historical events? Please illustrate which one of his grievances are fabricated.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

GAwd, you people are so entertaining.

[syn]

"It isn't a matter of being selective, its a matter of realistically looking at the Arab world and what THEY think and WHY they think it, not what you or anyone else thinks they should think or interpret history. It doesn't matter what our aims were either, it matters what the result was for the Arabs and how they perceive things."

Wow the sheer denial since 9/11/2001 will certainly be re-adjusted when a larger, far more destructive attack occurs; no one is talking about Arabs as the enemy since there are Arabs of all religious faiths living in the Middle East.

Did you miss what just happened in Mumbai, India??????

You speak as if you have some understanding of the 'Arab' world, not all Arabs are Muslim, not all Muslims are Islamists and not all Middle-Easterners want to live under a totalitarian Islamist State. In fact, Islamists are killing Muslims and Arabs for the cause of world-wide Caliphate, not saving them which is why Iraq is a victory for freedom in the middle-east and not a failure.

May I suggest reading the works of Bernard Lewis who offers invaluable resoucres into understanding what has been happening since the early 1970s.

"The reailty is that if not for U.S. support of Israel, the Arabs nemesisis, it would probably not exist, it certainly would not have the capability to invade/bomb and otherwise menance its neighbors."

Here's the thing, if 78% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama and pro-Israel supporter Rahm Emanuel is Chief of Staff therefore according to your premise is not Obama an Arab nemesis?

What universe are the creepy, freaky haters of classical Western Liberalism living in these days; they reek of creepy, the stench so strong I can smell their freaky from here about 3 miles from Ground Zero.

[Anon]

There is no worldwide Caliphate cause. Al Quada doesn't want to rule the West and neither do any other radical Islamic groups. This is pure fear based nonsense, I don't care whether there are any crazy people who wrote books about it or not, its nonsense.

Most people who think the "Islamists" want to take over the U.S. have been expecting another large scale attack since 9/11, in fact, most of them expected we would have already suffered another large scale attack. But, we didn't. And odds are, that we won't suffer another attack on that scale, let alone larger and more destructive. More non reality based fear mongering.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"More non reality based fear mongering."

Check with France and the UK, read some of the muzzie radicals own writings/statements....... and get back to us

[Donna V.]

Most people who think the "Islamists" want to take over the U.S. have been expecting another large scale attack since 9/11, in fact, most of them expected we would have already suffered another large scale attack. But, we didn't

Thank George Bush for that.

There is no worldwide Caliphate cause. Al Quada doesn't want to rule the West and neither do any other radical Islamic groups.

It must be nice living in your fuzzy happy moonbat dream world, unencumbered by any knowledge of history or current events (gee, didn't something unpleasant just happen in Mumbai? It must have been all our fault, I'm sure - just like terrorist attacks in Thailand and the Phillipines, the Sudan, and Kashmir. Yep, it's all the fault of the GOP and those damn Israelis.)

That "crazy" Bernard Lewis (actually he's one of the world's foremost authorities on Islam, you boneheaded twit) has written about Islam's "bloody borders" - the fact that whereever an Islamic culture rubs up against a non-Islamic one, violence ensues. But sure, keep on worrying about "global warming," doofus.

[Donna V.]

Oh, in my last post, I neglected to put

"Most people who think the "Islamists" want to take over the U.S. have been expecting another large scale attack since 9/11, in fact, most of them expected we would have already suffered another large scale attack. But, we didn't"

and

"There is no worldwide Caliphate cause. Al Quada doesn't want to rule the West and neither do any other radical Islamic groups."

in quotes. Sorry about that. It makes for a confusing post and I certainly don't want anybody thinking such ignorant comments were made by me.

[Anon]

Muslim acts of terrorism do not equate to Muslms desiring to take over the world and create a new Caliphate. If YOU knew anything about history, either ancient history or modern history you would know that.

Bin Laden laid out all of his reasons for attacking the WTC and not one of them included taking over the U.S. and establishing Sharia Law for all Americans.

I know who Bernard Lewis is and he's got a serious agenda that has nothing to do with facts and actual history.

[Fred Beloit]

"Bin Laden laid out all of his reasons for attacking the WTC and not one of them included taking over the U.S. and establishing Sharia Law for all Americans.
I know who Bernard Lewis is and he's got a serious agenda that has nothing to do with facts and actual history."

I suspect that you too, Anon, have an agenda, a serious agenda that has nothing to do with history and facts. The Islamists still and frequently refer to the West in general and Americans in particular as Crusaders:
"In 1076, the Muslims had captured Jerusalem - the most holy of holy places for Christians. Jesus had been born in nearby Bethlehem and Jesus had spent most of his life in Jerusalem. He was crucified on Calvary Hill, also in Jerusalem. There was no more important place on Earth than Jerusalem for a true Christian which is why Christians called Jerusalem the "City of God".

However, Jerusalem was also extremely important for the Muslims as Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim faith, had been there and there was great joy in the Muslim world when Jerusalem was captured. A beautiful dome - called the Dome of the Rock - was built on the rock where Muhammad was said to have sat and prayed and it was so holy that no Muslim was allowed to tread on the rock or touch it when visiting the Dome.

Therefore the Christian fought to get Jerusalem back while the Muslims fought to keep Jerusalem. These wars were to last nearly 200 years."

They want, first, to recapture the lands they first conquered in 1076 AD. Who did they take it from, Anon, since you seem to fancy yourself an expert?

[Anon]

Oh brother. Yes, the Muslims refer to The West as crusaders because it is their belief that The West has been and still is out to destroy Islam and unfortunately its people like you that reinforce this paranoia.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Al Quada doesn't want to conquer the West and forcible convert everyone to Islam. It doesn't change the fact that in Bin Laden's explanation for why he commits acts of terrorism, nowhere does he talk about taking over the West.

[Fred Beloit]

Sweet heaven above (peace be upon it)! Anon says we, especially people like me, brought 9/11 on ourselves. Anon says we, especially people like me, caused Mumbai, the recent Bahgdad bombing and all the other vicious attacks against civilians in the Mid-East. Anon says Osama speaks for all Islamists. Why haven't you simply said this from the beginning? What was with all the mellow BS you have been posting, man? You are against the Crusader devils. Got it. I was wasting my time talking to an anti-Western flack.

"I ain't sayin' you treated me unkind,
You coulda done better but I don't mind,
You just kinda wasted my precious time,
But don't think twice it's alright."
(From a long time ago when Dylan was still good.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Think_Twice,_It%27s_All_Right

[Anon]

Again, oh brother.

Holding a viewpoint -- that Islamic terrorists want to establish a global caliphate -- that is not backed up by any facts whatsoever, but is indeed an anti-muslim paranoid fantasy is exactly the kind of viewpoint that makes muslims distrust the West and believe that the West is out to eliminate Islam.

It has nothing to do with blaming terrorist attacks on the US or any other terrorist victims. What is has to do with is a TRUTHFUL statement about WHY the terrrorists are commiting these attacks, which again, has nothing to do with establishing a global caliphate, as there is not one iota of evidence that any of Al Quada's attacks had anything to do with establishing a global caliphate.

Basing any strategy on a non factual belief..such as that Islmatic terrorists commit terrorist acts because they want to etablish a global caliphate...ensures that any anti terrorist activities will fail in the end. It's stupid and unhelpful in fighting muslim extremism and terrorism.

Kind of like going to war over non existant weapons of mass destruction. Stupid, wasteful and ultimately destructive of your own goals.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123370