TWAneedsNOhelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2871 times:
Pan Am Lockerbie Scotland
US Embasies in Africa
Marine Baracks in Lebanon
World Trade Center
Conspiring to blow up US Airliners
Hostages in Iran/embassy attack
Osama Bin Laden
the WTC bombing mastermind in the Santa Claus hat
This isn't meant as any offense to anyone, but its 4AM in the morning, am I'm just curious what is it about the US that so many Moslems hate?
I know that a vast majority of Moslems probably have no feelings regarding the US, but American media supplies vastly different portrayals. So could anyone out there, Cedarjet, Shinseki, explain (if you have some time of course), what is the root of the animosity between these institutions? I know the French despise Americans, but they take their aggresions out in a different way (by hanging Ronald McDonald and The Hamburglar in effigy, and firebombing half built Burger Kings). No other religion has what would seem to be such an innate, deep seated hatred of one country than does Islam. I know Americans stereotype Indians as quickymart owners, but Hindu comes nowhere near Islam in its fundamentalist approaches to the US.
Also, becasue there seems to be no coordinaited central state to communicate these aggressions they come in the form of terror, hijacking, and bombings. China was unhappy that we bombed their Yugoslav embassy and that we keep informal relations with Taiwan, yet the Chinese people don't take part in scattered, terror attacks around the world?
(I can only imagine if that Chinese embasy hit was Egypt's or Saudi Arabia's.)
Also does the US get any credit for helping Muslims in need? Kosavar Albanians protected against agreesive Christian serbs. Freeing Kuwait with little to ask in return. Supplying a billion in dollars in aid to Egypt. Simply, protecting American muslims right to practice their religion and live (when 60 years ago the US imprisoned those thought to be associated with the enemy merely by physically looking like the enemy US LOW LOW POINT IN HISTORY).
So I ask, with an open mind and an open heart, what can the US do (short of ending relations with Israel) to become better cohabitants of this world with Islam and to teach those that fight in the name of Islam against the US, that the US is not the enemy, that the only enemy is violence.
Sn330 From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 16 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2791 times:
AerLingus and Trvlr are absolutely correct. They view the United States as an Israeli ally, which is true, and since Israel is probably the number one thing that followers of Islam despise, all allies of Israel are hated as well.
The followers of Islam that tend to hate America are all found in the Middle East and Saharan Africa.
Christianbothe From Germany, joined Jan 2000, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2770 times:
Before this thread is deleted because of numerous reasons:
Take a closer look. Who exactly is burning US flags in the streets? Is it the sheikh of Saudi Arabia after just selling some more barrels of oil to the US? No, it is the poor people in the streets. People that have almost nothing. How can you make them feel better? Tell them that there is somebody whose fault it is that they are poor. Give them something they can hate. The USA are in many things very different from Islam, and so they are the ideal one to hate.
It is the same as Hitler has done. When in the 1930 because of the World Economy crisis in Germany there were millions of poor people, he came and said that it was all because of the Jews. He gave them something to hate, something to blame, someone they could look down to.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2737 times:
Sorry I was being a smarty pants to your topic and the fact that you posted it at 4am in the morning...
Unfortunately government and religious propaganda go hand in hand in a lot of the muslim countries in the region. When they burn an American flag or effigy of a president they know they are going to get mighty media coverage because it pisses the USA off so much.
The many state run media agencies are more than happy (with goverment interference and control) to supply the likes of CNN and others huge amounts of this sort of stuff on a regular basis, when in actual fact the occurances are not that often. You have to remember that many, many people from these regions have emigrated to our countries because they don't like their own.
TWAneedsNOhelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
It just bothers me (I'm a proud proud American), that such a benevolent country such as America can be so hated. Yeah we've made our mistakes in the past (supplying arms to the Contras, supporting Hussein before we knew he was a powermonging dictator), but in the larger picture it is my belief that Islam, the Middle East, Jews and Muslim peoples have benefited greatly from the security we provide, the money we send, the peace talks we sponsor, and the support we lend (financial and otherwise). I'm only sorry that the poor people over there are taught such hate. It's probably not their fault either, its in society.
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
OK...I have stayed out of this because I was wanting to see if anyone has anything of substance to say...some of you have, some of you haven't.
The reason some Muslims have such disdain for America, is because of your countries policies in the past in some of these countries.
The country, which many people regard as the main "US-hater" is Iran. Don't forget that for many, many years Persia (and then Iran) were close friends of America, until the revolution in 1979. Why did America become such a hated entity after 1979? This is why: taken from http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/)
Shah-an-Shah [King of Kings] Mohammad Reza Pahlevi was restored to the Peacock Throne of Iran with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1953. CIA mounted a coup against the left-leaning government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, which had planned to nationalize Iran's oil industry. CIA subsequently provided organizational and and training assistance for the establishment of an intelligence organization for the Shah. With training focused on domestic security and interrogation, the primary purpose of the intelligence unit, headed by General Teymur Bakhtiar, was to eliminate threats to Shah.
Formed under the guidance of United States and Israeli intelligence officers in 1957, SAVAK developed into an effective secret agency. Bakhtiar was appointed its first director, only to be dismissed in 1961, allegedly for organizing a coup; he was assassinated in 1970 under mysterious circumstances, probably on the shah's direct order. His successor, General Hosain Pakravan, was dismissed in 1966, allegedly for having failed to crush the clerical opposition in the early 1960s. The shah turned to his childhood friend and classmate, General Nematollah Nassiri, to rebuild SAVAK and properly "serve" the monarch. Mansur Rafizadeh, the SAVAK director in the United States throughout the 1970s, claimed that General Nassiri's telephone was tapped by SAVAK agents reporting directly to the shah, an example of the level of mistrust pervading the government on the eve of the Revolution.
SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses. The United States reinforced its position as the Shah's protector and supporter, sowing the seeds of the anti-Americanism that later manifested itself in the revolution against the monarchy.
Accurate information concerning SAVAK remains publicly unavailable. A flurry of pamphlets issued by the revolutionary regime after 1979 indicated that SAVAK had been a full-scale intelligence agency with more than 15,000 full-time personnel and thousands of part-time informants. SAVAK was attached to the Office of the Prime Minister, and its director assumed the title of deputy to the prime minister for national security affairs. Although officially a civilian agency, SAVAK had close ties to the military; many of its officers served simultaneously in branches of the armed forces.
Another childhood friend and close confidant of the shah, Major General Hosain Fardust, was deputy director of SAVAK until the early 1970s, when the shah promoted him to the directorship of the Special Intelligence Bureau, which operated inside Niavaran Palace, independently of SAVAK.
Founded to round up members of the outlawed Tudeh, SAVAK expanded its activities to include gathering intelligence and neutralizing the regime's opponents. An elaborate system was created to monitor all facets of political life. For example, a censorship office was established to monitor journalists, literary figures, and academics throughout the country; it took appropriate measures against those who fell out of line. Universities, labor unions, and peasant organizations, among others, were all subjected to intense surveillance by SAVAK agents and paid informants. The agency was also active abroad, especially in monitoring Iranian students who publicly opposed Pahlavi rule.
SAVAK paid Rockwell International to implement a large communications monitoring system called IBEX. The Stanford Technology Corp. [STC, owned by Hakim] had a $5.5 million contract to supply the CIA-promoted IBEX project. STC had another $7.5 million contract with Iran's air force for a telephone monitoring system, operated by SAVAK, to enable the Shah to track his top commanders' communications.
Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting brokon glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks.
At the peak its influence under the Shah SAVAK had at least 13 full-time case officers running a network of informers and infiltration covering 30,000 Iranian students on United States college campuses. The head of the SAVAK agents in the United States operated under the cover of an attache at the Iranian Mission to the United Nations, with the FBI, CIA, and State Department fully aware of these activities.
In 1978 the deepening opposition to the Shah errupted in widespread demonstrations and rioting. SAVAK and the military responded with widespread repression that killed twelve to fifteen thousand people and seriously injured another fifty thousand. Recognizing that even this level of violence had failed to crush the rebellion, the Shah abdicated the Peacock Throne and departed Iran on 16 January 1979. Despite decades of pervasive surveillance by SAVAK, working closely with CIA, the extent of public opposition to the Shah, and his sudden departure, came as a considerable suprise to the US intelligence community and national leadership. As late as September 28, 1978 the US Defense Intelligence Agency reported that the shah "is expected to remain actively in power over the next ten years."
However, it was no surprise that SAVAK was singled out as a primary target for reprisals, its headquarters overrun, and prominent leaders tried and executed by komiteh representatives. High-ranking SAVAK agents were purged between 1979 and 1981; there were 61 SAVAK officials among 248 military personnel executed between February and September 1979. The organization was officially dissolved by Khomeini shortly after he came to power in 1979.
It is the same story with Libya, where the American government supported an autocratic, despiteful regime in King Idris, in much the same way as in Iran. Of course this friendly relationship ended when Qaddafi came to power in 1969.
But TWAneedsNOHelp....for you to say that America helped liberate Kuwait for want of nothing is pure hogwash and you know it. If it wasn't for Kuwaiti oil, no-one would have cared for one moment. Going on your reasoning there, why then did America not liberate South-West Africa (now Namibia) from the illegal rule of South Africa over several decades? Namibia has no major mineral resources which are of use to American enterprise. Sad....yes.....but also very true.
And I won't even mention the Israeli ingredient, because we all know about that.