- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Story link
Egypt has long argued for a comprehensive battle against terrorism and, following the terrorist attacks in America it declared its sympathy with Washington's desire to bring the perpetrators to justice and to wage an all-out war on terrorism. Yet once again Egypt has become the target of vicious criticism in the US press.
The Washington Post and New York Times are among the newspapers that have joined forces in what appears to be a deliberate campaign to stir tensions between Washington and Cairo. The Washington Post, for example, attacked President Mubarak for linking his support for US actions against terrorism to the need to promote a Middle East settlement and for dragging his feet in announcing his support for the measures the Bush administration has taken against terrorism. More insidiously, it charged that the government of Egypt was a dictatorship, one, moreover, that implicitly supported Bin Laden because it holds that the terrorist acts against the US were a response to Washington's absolute support for Israel.
Such accusations would be laughable were it not for the fact that they reflect profound insensitivity, if not ignorance. The authors seem oblivious to the irony that Washington's "either you're with us or against us" ultimatum is, itself, a dictatorial policy intended to pressure governments around the world to adopt the dictatorial practices they condemn.
Well, needless to say, i don't completely concur with their views, but it's refreshing to see someone express reasonably constructive criticism of the U.S., rather than just saying "you suck and deserve what happened to you." I must admit, however, that i'm still confused by some points the author makes, such as:
"The US has gone to lengths to show that its military action is not intended to target the Afghani people. It has air-dropped humanitarian and food relief packages as planes and missiles bombarded other areas of the country. Unfortunately, these packages are being dropped on the most heavily mined country on earth."
I don't make the connection between the amount of land mines there, and the air-dropping of food and other humanitarian aid. Is the author suggesting that we're purposely dropping the food into minefields? Or does he think we should be dropping it in another country altogether (presumably one with less mines?) and let the Afghans go get it and haul it back to Afghanistan?
Egypt has long argued for a comprehensive battle against terrorism and, following the terrorist attacks in America it declared its sympathy with Washington's desire to bring the perpetrators to justice and to wage an all-out war on terrorism. Yet once again Egypt has become the target of vicious criticism in the US press.
The Washington Post and New York Times are among the newspapers that have joined forces in what appears to be a deliberate campaign to stir tensions between Washington and Cairo. The Washington Post, for example, attacked President Mubarak for linking his support for US actions against terrorism to the need to promote a Middle East settlement and for dragging his feet in announcing his support for the measures the Bush administration has taken against terrorism. More insidiously, it charged that the government of Egypt was a dictatorship, one, moreover, that implicitly supported Bin Laden because it holds that the terrorist acts against the US were a response to Washington's absolute support for Israel.
Such accusations would be laughable were it not for the fact that they reflect profound insensitivity, if not ignorance. The authors seem oblivious to the irony that Washington's "either you're with us or against us" ultimatum is, itself, a dictatorial policy intended to pressure governments around the world to adopt the dictatorial practices they condemn.
Well, needless to say, i don't completely concur with their views, but it's refreshing to see someone express reasonably constructive criticism of the U.S., rather than just saying "you suck and deserve what happened to you." I must admit, however, that i'm still confused by some points the author makes, such as:
"The US has gone to lengths to show that its military action is not intended to target the Afghani people. It has air-dropped humanitarian and food relief packages as planes and missiles bombarded other areas of the country. Unfortunately, these packages are being dropped on the most heavily mined country on earth."
I don't make the connection between the amount of land mines there, and the air-dropping of food and other humanitarian aid. Is the author suggesting that we're purposely dropping the food into minefields? Or does he think we should be dropping it in another country altogether (presumably one with less mines?) and let the Afghans go get it and haul it back to Afghanistan?
Facebook
Twitter