US 'alienating' world's Muslims

[Czar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4040543.stm

The US is losing "the war of ideas" in the Islamic world, a Pentagon advisory panel has warned.
A report by the Defence Science Board says official US talk of bringing democracy to Muslim nations is seen as "self-serving hypocrisy".

It says if the US wants Muslims to move towards its understanding of tolerance, it must reassure them this does not mean submitting to "the American way".

The report urges Washington to change its approach urgently.


In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering

The Defence Science Board's report

However, it says that improving public relations is not enough.

"Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies," the report says.

"The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

"Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy," the report says.

It adds that the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has actually raised the stature of radical enemies of America.

"US actions appear... to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination," the report says.

'Information campaign'

It describes US public diplomacy as being in crisis and urges the creation of a strategic communications apparatus within the White House.

"The information campaign - or as some still would have it, 'the war of ideas' or the struggle for 'hearts and minds' - is important to every war effort," the report says, referring to the US-led war on terror.

The BBC's Nick Childs at the Pentagon says the report may not be official policy, but it does highlight many concerns in official circles in Washington about how the US government can communicate its messages abroad.

The Defence Science Board is made of civilian experts appointed by the Pentagon, and offers the department advice on scientific, technical and other issues.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Asking the US to do this is like asking Bin Laden to give up Islam. We insist on spreading Democracy like the Crusaders did Christianity.

 

[biostud]

Gee, what a shocker

 

[dmcowen674]

Muslim? What's that???

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Asking the US to do this is like asking Bin Laden to give up Islam. We insist on spreading Democracy like the Crusaders did Christianity.

the one element the crusaders did not bother with was spreading christianity. urban II's call for
the first crusade, and bernard of clairvaux's impassioned support for the second, did not articulate
a single concern about converting the saracens. there were one or two individual diplomatic efforts,
made by the franciscans (including one by st. frances of assisi) acting in their own capacity, but their
principle objectives were to roll back the advance of the saracens, free jerusalem, and provide a
controlled unencumbered route for christian pilgrims to the holy land.

by the way, the only other group to make a similar comparison between the crusaders and america's
effort in iraq today are the islamists and their sick supporters, bib laden, ofcourse, in their lead.

 

[syzygy]

from the article:

"The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in
favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support
for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan
and the Gulf states.

the u.s. also supports turkey and indonesia, the two largest democratic states with muslim majorities.
the u.s. also supported actions against the serbians, and conducted strikes against them, when they
were attacking the bosnian muslims.
the u.s. also supported tighter sanctions against saddam hussein when certain western nations were
watering down restrictions in favor of their own local economic agendas.
the u.s. supported - and served as intermediary - for the 1979 camp david peace accord, which was
roundly condemned in the arab world as traitorous, and has continued to serve in the same role for
talks between isreal and the palestinians.

these were just a few examples. it appears now the bbc is cribbing their write-ups against bush
from al-jazeera.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

bin Laden is losing "the war of ideas" in the US, an al Qaeda advisory panel has warned.
A report by the Islamic Science Board says official al Qaeda talk of bringing Islam to the rest of the world is seen as "self-serving hypocrisy".

It says if Muslims want the US to move towards its understanding of intolerance, it must reassure them this means submitting to "the Sharia way".

The report urges Mecca to change its approach urgently.


In the eyes of Americans, Islamofascist terrorism of the US and Spain has not led to Islam there, but only more chaos and suffering

The Islamic Science Board's report

However, it says that improving public relations is not enough.

"Americans do not hate our religion, but rather they hate our policies," the report says.

"The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Palestinians and against Israel's rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Americans collectively see as tyrannies, most notably in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

"Thus, when al Qaeda terrorists talk about bringing Islam to Democratic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy," the report says.

It adds that the Islamic-led conflicts in Sudan and Chechnya has actually lowered the stature of radical enemies of America.

"Muslim actions appear... to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve radical Islamic interests at the expense of truly American self-determination," the report says.

'Information campaign'

It describes Muslim public diplomacy as being in crisis and urges the creation of a strategic communications apparatus within the mosques.

"The information campaign - or as some still would have it, 'the war of ideas' or the struggle for 'hearts and minds' - is important to every terror effort," the report says, referring to Islamic-led terror war.

al Jazera's Muhammed Mustafa at the mosque says the report may not be official policy, but it does highlight many concerns in official circles in Mecca about how Islam can communicate its messages abroad.

The Islamic Science Board is made of religious experts appointed by the Wahabbis, and offers the department advice on oppression, subjugating women, stoning your children, and other issues.

 

[Czar]

syzygy,
by all means, shoot the messanger :roll:

 

[Czar]

TastesLikeChicken,
good point but remember who is pushing whose idelogy on the other

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Czar
syzygy,
by all means, shoot the messanger :roll:

when the messenger is a western liberal dressed in arab nationalist garb - because its the
fashion rage, ya see - then, yes, we'll shoot the messenger, though not before we've baked
and poked him a little.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Czar
TastesLikeChicken,
good point but remember who is pushing whose idelogy on the other

I remember we are pushing our ideology after first being attacked in our homeland and subsequently being told that we should submit to Islam or prepare to be killed as infidels. The fight was brought to us initially. Even the original Crusades were kicked off by Muslims invading the Christian holy lands.

Ours is a response to the gauntlet being thrown down. We can either pick up that gauntlet and smack them with it or submit. Their is no diplomatic middle in this case.

Which is your choice?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Czar
syzygy,
by all means, shoot the messanger :roll:

when the messenger is a western liberal dressed in arab nationalist garb - because its the
fashion rage, ya see - then, yes, we'll shoot the messenger, though not before we've baked
and poked him a little.

its a pentagon report, its not written by the bbc
http://www.latimes.com/news/na...oll=la-headlines-world

Muslims object to "what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel" and support for what they "see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the [Persian] Gulf states," the panel's report says. Thus, talk about "bringing democracy to Islamic societies ? is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy," it says.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6577524/

?In other words, Americans have become the enemy,? it said. ?It is noteworthy that opinion is (strongest) against America in precisely those places ruled by what Muslims call ?apostates? and tyrants ? the tyrants we support. This should give us pause."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/politics/24info.html

"Today we reflexively compare Muslim 'masses' to those oppressed under Soviet rule," the report adds. "This is a strategic mistake. There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies - except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends."

The report says that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies," adding that "when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."

ever known what " means?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar
TastesLikeChicken,
good point but remember who is pushing whose idelogy on the other

I remember we are pushing our ideology after first being attacked in our homeland and subsequently being told that we should submit to Islam or prepare to be killed as infidels. The fight was brought to us initially. Even the original Crusades were kicked off by Muslims invading the Christian holy lands.

Ours is a response to the gauntlet being thrown down. We can either pick up that gauntlet and smack them with it or submit. Their is no diplomatic middle in this case.

Which is your choice?

Did Iraq attack you? did the muslim world attack you?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar
TastesLikeChicken,
good point but remember who is pushing whose idelogy on the other

I remember we are pushing our ideology after first being attacked in our homeland and subsequently being told that we should submit to Islam or prepare to be killed as infidels. The fight was brought to us initially. Even the original Crusades were kicked off by Muslims invading the Christian holy lands.

Ours is a response to the gauntlet being thrown down. We can either pick up that gauntlet and smack them with it or submit. Their is no diplomatic middle in this case.

Which is your choice?

Did Iraq attack you? did the muslim world attack you?

No country attacked us. A religious ideology atacked us. A religious ideology that is part and parcel of the Muslim world. It's an ideology that was prevalent in Iraq, even in Saddam's time, just as it's prevalent in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc. Since those countries don't seem too interested in dealing with their own problem, we have to deal with it for them whether they like it or not.

 

[Czar]

since Bush has said god speaks to him and he is openly religous, a christian, does it give for example Iraq the right to attack some unrelated christian country with the motive that that christian country has the same "religous idelogy" as the US ?

does the action of one terrorist groups located in Afghanistan give the US the right to attack 1 billion people?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Czar
since Bush has said god speaks to him and he is openly religous, a christian, does it give for example Iraq the right to attack some unrelated christian country with the motive that that christian country has the same "religous idelogy" as the US ?

Are you assuming that "religious ideology" killed thousands of innocent civilians first?

I don't remember fundie Christians forming terrorist groups and fomenting international terrorism with the idea of instilling their specific brand of Christianity in every government around the world. Let me know when that happens.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar
since Bush has said god speaks to him and he is openly religous, a christian, does it give for example Iraq the right to attack some unrelated christian country with the motive that that christian country has the same "religous idelogy" as the US ?

Are you assuming that "religious ideology" killed thousands of innocent civilians first?

I don't remember fundie Christians forming terrorist groups and fomenting international terrorism with the idea of instilling their specific brand of Christianity in every government around the world. Let me know when that happens.

Then because the US was attacked by a small group of muslims out of over 1 billion muslims in the world, does it give the US the right to force their ideals on all muslims? or just those who share the ideals of those "extreme" people who attacked the US ?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar
since Bush has said god speaks to him and he is openly religous, a christian, does it give for example Iraq the right to attack some unrelated christian country with the motive that that christian country has the same "religous idelogy" as the US ?

Are you assuming that "religious ideology" killed thousands of innocent civilians first?

I don't remember fundie Christians forming terrorist groups and fomenting international terrorism with the idea of instilling their specific brand of Christianity in every government around the world. Let me know when that happens.

Then because the US was attacked by a small group of muslims out of over 1 billion muslims in the world, does it give the US the right to force their ideals on all muslims? or just those who share the ideals of those "extreme" people who attacked the US ?

The ideals we are enforcing are political ones, not religious. Are you saying it's wrong to allow all Muslims a voice in their government, instead of leaving the oppressive, totalitarian type of regimes that proliferate there now to breed and feed Islamofascism in the first place? We are not trying to change their religion or their culture. We are tying to impose a political framework that reduces their more fanatical fringe which benefits not only us, but a huge percentage of those 1 billion Muslims as well.

And that's all I have time to say. I have to go to Thanksgiving lunch, then go fry a turkey for Dinner, and tomorrow I'm having Lasik surgery so I won't be around for a few days (Keep the applause down please.)

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

 

[ATIuser]

The world's Muslims hate the USA already so I don't feel too concerned that they are going to hate us more. I feel more comfortable if they hate us and fear us, than if they hate us and don't fear us.
Yes we have every right to invade non-free Muslim countries and convert them to democracy. We only don't have a right to invade free societies.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar
since Bush has said god speaks to him and he is openly religous, a christian, does it give for example Iraq the right to attack some unrelated christian country with the motive that that christian country has the same "religous idelogy" as the US ?

Are you assuming that "religious ideology" killed thousands of innocent civilians first?

I don't remember fundie Christians forming terrorist groups and fomenting international terrorism with the idea of instilling their specific brand of Christianity in every government around the world. Let me know when that happens.

Then because the US was attacked by a small group of muslims out of over 1 billion muslims in the world, does it give the US the right to force their ideals on all muslims? or just those who share the ideals of those "extreme" people who attacked the US ?

The ideals we are enforcing are political ones, not religious. Are you saying it's wrong to allow all Muslims a voice in their government, instead of leaving the oppressive, totalitarian type of regimes that proliferate there now to breed and feed Islamofascism in the first place? We are not trying to change their religion or their culture. We are tying to impose a political framework that reduces their more fanatical fringe which benefits not only us, but a huge percentage of those 1 billion Muslims as well.

And that's all I have time to say. I have to go to Thanksgiving lunch, then go fry a turkey for Dinner, and tomorrow I'm having Lasik surgery so I won't be around for a few days (Keep the applause down please.)

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Shouldnt it be up to them what way road they go? if they feel that our way of doing things is "wrong" should they be in the right of emposing their rule of government on us?
Our culture and their culture is not just about religion, it is about the society we all live in.

And happy thanksgiving and good luck on that surgery

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Asking the US to do this is like asking Bin Laden to give up Islam. We insist on spreading Democracy like the Crusaders did Christianity.

the one element the crusaders did not bother with was spreading christianity. urban II's call for
the first crusade, and bernard of clairvaux's impassioned support for the second, did not articulate
a single concern about converting the saracens. there were one or two individual diplomatic efforts,
made by the franciscans (including one by st. frances of assisi) acting in their own capacity, but their
principle objectives were to roll back the advance of the saracens, free jerusalem, and provide a
controlled unencumbered route for christian pilgrims to the holy land.

by the way, the only other group to make a similar comparison between the crusaders and america's
effort in iraq today are the islamists and their sick supporters, bib laden, ofcourse, in their lead.

You mean the Crusades weren't about spreading Christianity? Shocking! You mean it had another agenda? Sounds like us spreading Democracy. You and I know if it were expedient, we would have installed another dictator. We may yet cause that to happen.

Yes, we did in effect invite Bin Ladin and Co. into Iraq. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ATIuser
The world's Muslims hate the USA already so I don't feel too concerned that they are going to hate us more. I feel more comfortable if they hate us and fear us, than if they hate us and don't fear us.
Yes we have every right to invade non-free Muslim countries and convert them to democracy. We only don't have a right to invade free societies.

Sounds good, but it's wrong.

Most Muslims really don't care about the US unless it is sticking it's nose in their business. Otherwise that may not like us, but I don't like Bush either. I am not going to lob an RPG in his direction. Neither are they. They don't have that much time on their hands for such foolishness. Most are trying to raise families, pay the bills, do all the things we do here.

Now if you do make them actually fear us, you will cause them to hate us as well. When that happens, many will act on that fear, and it won't be by cowering like slaves at their masters feet.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Asking the US to do this is like asking Bin Laden to give up Islam. We insist on spreading Democracy like the Crusaders did Christianity.

the one element the crusaders did not bother with was spreading christianity. urban II's call for
the first crusade, and bernard of clairvaux's impassioned support for the second, did not articulate
a single concern about converting the saracens. there were one or two individual diplomatic efforts,
made by the franciscans (including one by st. frances of assisi) acting in their own capacity, but their
principle objectives were to roll back the advance of the saracens, free jerusalem, and provide a
controlled unencumbered route for christian pilgrims to the holy land.

by the way, the only other group to make a similar comparison between the crusaders and america's
effort in iraq today are the islamists and their sick supporters, bib laden, ofcourse, in their lead.

You mean the Crusades weren't about spreading Christianity? Shocking! You mean it had another agenda? Sounds like us spreading Democracy. You and I know if it were expedient, we would have installed another dictator. We may yet cause that to happen.

Yes, we did in effect invite Bin Ladin and Co. into Iraq. Thanks for pointing that out.

not surprising you can't follow your own analogies for long, leaving the responsibility to rationalize
your own drivel to someone foolish enough to respond.

your moronic analogy was straightfoward - which i suppose is a virtue for you : crusaders to
christianity to what american involvement in iraq is to democracy. but the analogy is boneheaded
because the premises are wrong. whereas bush justified his actions with the intention of
promoting democracy, none of the principal leaders of the crusade ever mentioned christian
proselytization as an goal or enterprise. they didn't care if the saracens converted to christianity.
they just wanted them all dead and/or out of the holy land.

heck, the fourth crusade never even reached jerusalem or touched any part of the levant.

i never pointed out, mentioned, or even alluded to your idiotic assertion that we invited your
islamist friends into iraq. but keep those wet dreams pumping in the off chance, one day, i
may just do so.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Asking the US to do this is like asking Bin Laden to give up Islam. We insist on spreading Democracy like the Crusaders did Christianity.

the one element the crusaders did not bother with was spreading christianity. urban II's call for
the first crusade, and bernard of clairvaux's impassioned support for the second, did not articulate
a single concern about converting the saracens. there were one or two individual diplomatic efforts,
made by the franciscans (including one by st. frances of assisi) acting in their own capacity, but their
principle objectives were to roll back the advance of the saracens, free jerusalem, and provide a
controlled unencumbered route for christian pilgrims to the holy land.

by the way, the only other group to make a similar comparison between the crusaders and america's
effort in iraq today are the islamists and their sick supporters, bib laden, ofcourse, in their lead.

You mean the Crusades weren't about spreading Christianity? Shocking! You mean it had another agenda? Sounds like us spreading Democracy. You and I know if it were expedient, we would have installed another dictator. We may yet cause that to happen.

Yes, we did in effect invite Bin Ladin and Co. into Iraq. Thanks for pointing that out.

not surprising you can't follow your own analogies for long, leaving the responsibility to rationalize
your own drivel to someone foolish enough to respond.

your moronic analogy was straightfoward - which i suppose is a virtue for you : crusaders to
christianity to what american involvement in iraq is to democracy. but the analogy is boneheaded
because the premises are wrong. whereas bush justified his actions with the intention of
promoting democracy, none of the principal leaders of the crusade ever mentioned christian
proselytization as an goal or enterprise. they didn't care if the saracens converted to christianity.
they just wanted them all dead and/or out of the holy land.

heck, the fourth crusade never even reached jerusalem or touched any part of the levant.

i never pointed out, mentioned, or even alluded to your idiotic assertion that we invited your
islamist friends into iraq. but keep those wet dreams pumping in the off chance, one day, i
may just do so.

I am sorry you are too stupid to see that you dug a trap and fell into it.
You aren't very bright.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Czar
syzygy,
by all means, shoot the messanger :roll:

when the messenger is a western liberal dressed in arab nationalist garb - because its the
fashion rage, ya see - then, yes, we'll shoot the messenger, though not before we've baked
and poked him a little.

its a pentagon report, its not written by the bbc


ever known what " means?

i didn't state it was written by the bbc, just that is was delivered by the bbc, spin and all.
try to respond to what i actually do write, rather than conjuring up substitutions.

remember the messenger you mentioned above . .. messenger, bad; author, good.
the report puts forward a message that has been iterated before and contains the
same appeals to counter the flood of one-sided appraisals as exemplified by the
bbc's handling of the issue.

alot has been done for the muslim world by american administrations. in fact, more
has been done by american and european efforts than all the combined arab and
muslim countries could ever lay claim to. arabs vacillate between lament and
support for some of recent history's worst dictators, so the fact they mince and
select their facts is predictable. the bbc has mentioned these problems before but
they chose not to include them here, not even a passing mention, for a better analysis
of the issue. and it it a larger issue, not just this story, which is only symptomatic.