The Arab world and 9/11

[The Pioneer]

Am I the only one here or is it not that OBL and other terrorists are a threat to the US and Europe but also a big threat to the Muslims themselves?

So long...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ahh, yes, it is all a problem due to lack of communication.

If congress told police officers to shoot suspicious looking black people on sight, while ignoring crime comitted by white people to the best of their ability, it must be the fault of the press if the black community get's angry. Which makes sense, since the press is all liberal anyway, right?

Bah.

Are you in the right thread?

[CyberGnu]

"The free press like Al-Jezeera just spout hatred of the West like all the rest. "

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: The Arab world and 9/11

Originally posted by Faeelin
According to the a Jordanian journalist, Mr. Khouir, "everyone [he] knows wants Hussein removed." He then goes on to say that he doesn't trust Ameri ca to do it, because "they are the last people in the world who will work on the behalf of Arab interests."

Well, aside from the fact that the 2nd is blatantly untrue

Why is it untrue?

If there was a man such as Hussein in, say, Eastern Europe (say, in a balkan nation)the EU would most likely invade, and overthrow him before things got worse. Yet even in the aftermath of 9/11, there was barely a murmur of support from "America's staunchest Arab allies" Egypt and Jordan.

Maybe they resent and distrust you more than they want Saddam out.
Maybe they think you will be more destructive than Saddam if you try to do anything.

Saudi Arabia should be condemned, but that's another story

Is it? By discarding things so easily you fail to see the impact and parameters they have on the muslim world and the world in general.

Yet where's the support in the Arab world itself for democratic reforms?

Ironically enough (not really) the US is crushing it and has crushed it on a number of occasions. Better a pro - american regime oppresive to its people than an anti-american democracy.

Here's a few ironic comments: "People in the Arab world are much more educated than before and they resent their regimes." This resentment would strengthen the hand of such extremist organizations, he said."

Does anybody else see the irony involved in that last quote?

Only a lack by your part to realize what I think is obvious.

You could argue that many of those flaws existed. However, considering how the president has tried to emphasize that he's not trying to declare war on islam, and came on the air almost immediately after the first hate crime, warning people to stop, I'd like to know what rhetoric is meant.

The rehtoric is very substancial. It means that if the arab world lets or helps US invade Iraq who would be next? Maybe whoever else does not conform with american demands?

The call to rally under the banner of the "arab world" is secondary and serves the above mentioned concern.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tolls

As I pointed out on Ned's thread, Al-Jezeera is the one that has shown interviews with Al-Quaeda representatives recently saying they planned it...

If the people don't believe them that is hardly their fault.

"Recently" may be the key work here. I believe they refused to run prior OBL tapes, like the one where he was dining with the Saudi shiek, even while they carried the 4000 Jews stayed home story.

One of our (the West's) main problems with Arabia is that none of our news networks has an Arabic-language broadcast. So what the average Arab sees is Al-Jezeera, which does not seem to be totally neutral and unbiased.

[GePap]

All this 'arab are terrorists', 'there is something terribly wrong with Arabs' is just a bunch of self-serving rantings design to make people in the US and Europe feel like they are the biggest victims in the world. Lets look at some interesting numbers:

# people killed by Al Qaeda in terrorist attacks: High estimates: 5000 people since 1993.
# Israelis killed by all Palestinian factions since 1950: 2500 (the Israeli foreign office gives out ful lists of all Israeli citizens killed in what Israel considers terrorists attacks since 1950. I have added about 700+ extra just to be safe)
# westerners killed by other Arab terrorist groups since 1970: lets say 4000 (way to high by any strech of the imagination)

Total? 11500 people in 50 years, most in the last 25.

Number kiled in Colombia over the same time? 30000 plus.
Numer killed in Guatemala? 150000
NUmber killed in Gulf War? 100000+
Number kiled in iran Iraq war? half million plus
NUmber killed in the Sudan war? 2.5 million
Number of people killed in Ethopia Eritrea border war? 50000.
Number of people kiled in central African war? 2 million.
Number killed by Hutu extremists in 3 months in 1994? 1 million (figures based on Rwandan government census)
Number kiled by regime in kampuchea in 1970's? 2 million.

Everyone here keeps talking about how evil and screwed p the Arabs are, the muslims are, yet in simple temrs of human suffereing all the terrorists attacks, including the biggest one of all, 9/11, are dwarfed by the vast human suffering in many parts of the world, much of it having 0 to do with Arab, or Muslims, or the normal bogeymen. Can someone lease explain to me why Osama Bin Laden is labelled the greatest evil in the wolrd, when there is a man in trial in Tanzania, accused of helping to organize, lan and execute a chain of events that killed 1000000 in three months, or three times as many dead as in 9/11 a day, for 90 plus days in a row? Is it because he isn't Arab ad Muslim that we can't label a man, with possibly, endlessly more blood on his hands, the greatest evil man in the worlkd today?

[Tolls]

"So what the average Arab sees is Al-Jezeera, which does not seem to be totally neutral and unbiased."

And the average american sees Fox or CNN...

Al-Jezeera was built from the old BBC staff out there, when that was shut down. They are as neutral as can be, as neutral as Fox or CNN. They've managed to p off many an Arab leader in the past few years, and most of them would rather they were not around.

And Al-Jazeera never reported the "4000 Jews stayed at home" story...they corrected it in fact.

They did show the bin Laden videos, but then that was big news...

I would say they are very even handed...amazingly so considering their location.

[CyberGnu]

But GePap, I prefer to leave the moral relativity to the pro-Israelis. Killing innocents is always wrong, no matter where and how many. We should at the very least fight for elimination of support for repressive regimes, whether they are headed by Hussein, Milosovic or Sharon. When we've achieved that, then we could start thinking about what situations are so bad as to require intervention.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tolls
"So what the average Arab sees is Al-Jezeera, which does not seem to be totally neutral and unbiased."

And the average american sees Fox or CNN...

Al-Jezeera was built from the old BBC staff out there, when that was shut down. They are as neutral as can be, as neutral as Fox or CNN. They've managed to p off many an Arab leader in the past few years, and most of them would rather they were not around.

And Al-Jazeera never reported the "4000 Jews stayed at home" story...they corrected it in fact.

They did show the bin Laden videos, but then that was big news...

I would say they are very even handed...amazingly so considering their location.

There was a major flap between Al-Jazeera and CNN over one if the interviews with OBL that AJ refuse to run.

But I'll let that slide and accept as fact that AJ corrected the 4000 Jews Stayed Home story. This does indicate that the average Arab tends to believe bad information about Israel and the United States and also to not believe favorable information concerning the two, or negative information about an Arab. This reminds me of the OJ trial, where the all-black jury was willing to believe the worst of the LA police department rather than believe the overwhelming physical case of OJ's guilt presented to them.

[The Pioneer]

Most of the killings you mentioned GePap were carried out in some "obscure distant place" and not in the "western world", that's the plain truth and my biggest grip with the war against terror from the USA and its allies. I already mentioned in another post some days ago that this hyppocrisy (sp?) is the biggest problem that we have. If the UN, Bush and others would intervened in countries like Rwanda, East Timor, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Colombia and many others then we could really talk about trying to free people and fight for democracy and rid the world of terror. Only then can we speak and mean what we say in all the rhetoric that has been popular in the last year.

OBL is an evil person, no doubt about and it does not have anything to do with the fact that he is muslim or an Arab but he does present a danger for them as well as for "the infidels".

So long...

[Az]

GePap , you seem to give no meaning whatsoever to intent.

[Lars-E]

Just curious...do any of you Jews in here believe that the Arabs stem from Ishmael and that they will be a thorn in your side? Forever? Or that "the hand of the Arab is against everybody?"

[Az]

well, I , as always, can't speak for anyone else, but I don't believe in that. That part of the bible is , IMO , a myth. the later parts , towards the end of the old testament , esp. the geopolitical analisys seems to be right.

[CyberGnu]

Ned:

But I'll let that slide and accept as fact that AJ corrected the 4000 Jews Stayed Home story. This does indicate that the average Arab tends to believe bad information about Israel and the United States and also to not believe favorable information concerning the two, or negative information about an Arab. This reminds me of the OJ trial, where the all-black jury was willing to believe the worst of the LA police department rather than believe the overwhelming physical case of OJ's guilt presented to them.

Agree completely. Of course, for another example you might take Siro's view of western media reports which are unflattering to Israel...

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Tolls
"...yet can you imagine the *uproar* we'd get if we turned on the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan and whatnot..."

There is a difference between not supporting a regime and actively turning on them you know.

By turning on them, I mean no longer diplomatically recognizing them nor conducting any trade with them and perhaps even putting sanctions on them until representative governments come into being.

Besides, isn't "not supporting" but *still* conducting trade, having diplomatic relations and such the stuff the most of the world does now with non-democratic regimes? How does such a stance help effect the spread of democracy? My "turning on them" goes beyond that, but not quite to the military level. I wonder how much of the Western world and other democracies would actually follow such a move by the United States?

It seems a number of countries would like to trade with Iraq, in spite of the economic sanctions in place. Isn't Iraq an example of what would *really* happen if the isolation tactics I proposed were employed against other non-democratic countries? (BTW, this trade goes beyond merely providing Iraq w/funds for medicine and rebuilding infrastructure ... of which an unknown amount undoubtably is diverted to Saddam's "private" programs.)

Gatekeeper