Skip to comments.Why do they hate us? (Why Any Sane Person Hates Liberal Journalists)
Posted on 05/30/2005 4:49:03 PM PDT by Cornpone
Why do they hate use so? That question was asked by many Americans after 11 September 2001. The query is based entirely on ignorance, which, by itself, is a result of a chronic American fault - a near total apathy towards history.
The vast majority of Americans are clueless regarding the past of faraway lands as well as their own. That is highly dangerous in so much as we share this planet with other ethnicities, and historical illiteracy breeds misunderstanding.
George Santayana wrote: "Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it," or words to that effect, and many believe him, allowing the caveat that the principle also applies to those who never learned history in the first place.
Subsequently, during the agony known as the Iraq war, it becomes easy to be fixed totally on the present - the present being defined as that era beginning 19 March 2003, to now - and that is folly.
Noting that awareness of the past is a two-edged sword, meaning it is incumbent upon Arabs to learn as much as they can about the West, the fact remains that since the fall of the Arab empire in the 11th century, Arabs have not been in control of their own destiny, and, to a large extent, that condition exists today, Bush's attack on Iraq being a case in point.
After the Seljuk Turks took control of the eastern Mediterranean lands (now known as Palestine) and Mesopotamia (Iraq), Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade to gain control of the Holy Land in 1096.
The Western army created four colonies, including one in Jerusalem. Using the euphemism, crusaders, European armies continued their pious invasions of the Middle East (applying the modern term), the last major incursion, the Fourth Crusade, taking place in 1204, at which time the "crusaders" plundered Constantinople (Istanbul).
The vast majority of Americans are clueless regarding the past of faraway lands, as well as their own.
The Seljuk Turks were followed by the Mongol empire (1219 to 1500), and the Mongols were replaced by the Ottoman Turks during the 1500s.
At the height of the Ottoman empire, 1566, their control over Arab lands stretched from Mesopotamia through the Holy Land into North Africa from Egypt to Tunisia.
The Ottoman empire maintained its grip on modern-day Iraq and Palestine until the end of the first world war, at which time those lands fell under British rule. Iraq achieved its "independence" in 1932.
Egypt and Suez
Meanwhile, the largest Arab nation in the world, Egypt, did not fare much better. As stated, she was conquered by the Turks as well. In 1798, Napoleonic France gained control of it, and the emperor's troops were tossed out by British and Turkish forces in 1801.
This was followed by a brief period of autonomy under Muhamad Ali, an Albanian. However, the fate of Egypt was sealed in 1869.
Built by the French, the Suez Canal was opened. In 1875, Great Britain took control of the canal, and, in a manner of speaking, control of that vital waterway remains in the hands of the West to this day.
In 1882, Britain occupied Egypt. Gamal Abd al-Nassir nationalised the canal in 1956, but a war that year involving France and Britain clearly illustrated that Egypt really does not control the Suez.
Today, for example, the canal and access to the Red Sea and Arabian Sea is largely in the hands of the American Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Fleets, as is the Persian Gulf. There could well be some Arab resentment about that.
The fact remains that since the fall of the Arab empire in the 11 century, Arabs have not been in control of their own destiny.
Arabs living in Arabia, changed to Saudi Arabia in 1932 in honour of the ruling family in the kingdom, have been largely independent, using the generic meaning of the term, since the days of the Muslim empire.
Now that last statement assumes that Arabs in the kingdom (Saudi Arabia) can experience independence while the United States has bases in Dhahran, Jedda, Riyadh and four other locations, with still other locations that are "classified". There could well be some Arab resentment about that.
Recalling that Egypt's fate was sealed in 1869, the fate of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations was sealed in the 1930s. Oil was discovered.
The Middle East possesses the world's largest easily accessible reserves of black gold, Saudi Arabia ranking first, Iraq second. Western oil companies moved in.
Arab lands were now doomed to dominance by the industrial West, which needed that oil for its cars, planes, ships, and factories. There could well be some Arab resentment about that.
Mother of all insults
The greatest ignominy, by far, perpetrated by the West upon the Arab people is the formation of the state of Israel.
Indeed, the creation of the Jewish state fomented Islamic "terrorism", as we know it today. Arab nationalists, frustrated by defeat in wars against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, turned to "terrorism" and every target in the West was open game, Munich Olympics in 1972, Achille Lauro in 1985, World Trade Centre in 1993 and, of course, 2001.
Actually, over the years, the target list has become a very long one. Many in the West respect the state of Israel, but that is not the point.
For Americans to fully appreciate the scope of this mother of all insults, please allow a ridiculous scenario.
Let us assume that the Arab League had the power to carve a nation out of the United States, say in Montana, meaning no disrespect to the inhabitants of that great state, and populate it with our deadliest enemy - members of al-Qaida. Would that not create a bit of a stir on the part of Americans? There could well be some American resentment about that.
How did this happen? That story is equally sordid. In 1917, the British treasury was depleted by the war, and Britain was facing defeat.
Chaim Weizmann, an activist within the World Zionist Organisation and the first Israeli president, offered both financial hope and improved weaponry to Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour.
Arabs in the kingdom (Saudi Arabia) can experience independence while the United States has bases in Dhahran, Jedda, Riyadh and four other locations, with still other locations that are "classified".
The result is the infamous Balfour Declaration that stated equivocally that His Majesty's government favoured, "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of that object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done, which may prejudice the religious and civil rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
Balfour was equivocal, because he later added in a private memorandum in 1919: "For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country.
"The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs, who now inhabit that ancient land."
Birth of Israel
This uniquely bad form by Britain was followed by the UN adoption of the Balfour Declaration after the second world war.
On 14 May 1948, Israel came into existence under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion. There could well be some Arab resentment about that. After the second world war, the British and French empires collapsed.
The vacuum was filled by the United States. Currently, American CBG's (Carrier Battle Groups) roam the high seas, totally dominant and unrivalled.
That made the US a target. Knowing this and aware that vibrant Arab nationalism has been around for more than 200 years, I nearly cried when Bush invaded Iraq.
That made our young, our future, enmeshed in a fiery cauldron so far from home and targets for Arab revenge. There are some who feel that the US goal in Iraq is the creation of a democracy.
Bush's goals or justification for war has changed over the years, and this new one was adopted after his February 2005 State of the Union address.
Role of religion
Once again, history becomes a casualty. Never in the history of mankind has democracy flourished at the point of a gun. Also, an absolute requirement for a democracy is education, a secular education, not a Bible-waving, Quran-waving education. Education slanted by religion breeds prejudice.
Religion belongs in the home, church or mosque, and the innermost thoughts of the individual.
Let's just say that both Christianity and Islam are two of the great religions of the world and get on with it - meaning governance.
Does more than 900 years of foreign domination, the lion's share of it by Western powers, justify atrocities? Emphatically no. There is no purpose served by killing 25 people and wounding 50 others at a funeral.
However, the Iraqi resistance fighter is a soldier, and soldiers are strong adherents to reality. One reality is that continued attacks on Iraqi policemen and national guard units only prolong the stay of the American occupation forces.
At some point, the soldier will come to the bargaining table, and I am clueless at to what will happen there.
However, centuries of Western domination are kind of hard to forget and that will remove any holier-than-thou attitude American negotiators may have.
Once a man's grievance is recognised, that can go a long way towards understanding.
Sandy Shanks is an author and columnist. He lives in Southern California.
You don't have to look nearly that far back to find evidence of Muslim atrocities. Sept. 11, 2001 will suffice.
This article couldn't be stightly biased could it? Not from Al Jezeera, the most honest and forthright news organization on the planet?
Sandy needs to ask a more pertinent question.
The question should be: "Why don't they give a rat's behind?"
"Once again, history becomes a casualty. Never in the history of mankind has democracy flourished at the point of a gun."
"Sandy Shanks" sounds like a good candidate for one of Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments.
They hate us because they hate Jesus. These deluded sad souls live a life of hatred, much like the hatred spawn of many of the liberal idealogies. They, the Fundamental Islamists wish the Christians and the Jews to be dead, and are fed lies of Hatred from a young age. Christianity and Judiaism are about love and I wish the Light to come to the Middle east and lay aside the great lier that pretends to be the prophet of God.
>> You will starve to death if you are not able to sell your oil!<<
With all due respect to both you and Friedman, crude oil is fungible. This simple truth means that any oil pumped by the Saudis competes in the world market for price and availablity. To cut off their funding, their oil wells must be plugged. Anything less and they get money for oil.
This fact is ignored by advocates in the US of "reducing dependency on foreign oil". Either those advocates are ignorant or they have another agenda. I suspect a little of both because their plans always seem to include higher taxes and reduced liberty.
Indeed, an editorial in the recent National Review, "Alternative-Fuel Nonsense", outlines plans by a group called Set America Free to help US drivers conserve by setting the price of gasoline at $4.00/gallon.
And just who will get the use of this Social Security-like river of tax revenue to use on their own pet projects was not made clear.
From the editorial:
But the process of replacing older vehicles with ethanol-fueled plug-in hybrids would move with glacial slowness, and would not shrink global oil demand enough to collapse oil prices. That is why Friedman proposes to further decrease demand by raising U.S. taxes high enough to keep gasoline above $4 a gallon regardless of the price of crude. In practice, this would simply mean that we would pay much more for gasoline so other nations could pay less.
Even if world oil did fall back to $18 a barrel, as Friedman would like, there would be no incentive for Asia or Europe to economize on oil use at all, nor for anyone to supply or demand expensive alternatives. Besides, the price of oil was below $18 nearly all the time from February 1986 to June 1999 falling as low as $11 at the end of 1998 and remaining below $20 through the end of 2001. Yet cheap oil did nothing to promote economic or political liberty in Algeria, Iran, or anywhere else. This theory has been tested and it failed completely.
And the theory that changing oil purchases from states sponsoring radical Islamists will change their interest in funding their jihad against the infidel has been equally tested and is an equal failure.
If the US did not import a drop of oil from any source, does anyone rationally believe that the Islamists will stop trying to achieve the reward of a jihadist by destroying the country they call the Great Satan?
ROFL! Indeed, if we go back to the afternoon of 9/11/2001 and recall the reasons the Islamists themselves gave for that attack, they listed four:
1) Western culture was eroding the appeal of Islam to Arab youth;
2) US support of Israel;
3) US troops on "holy soil", meaning US military bases in Saudi Arabia;
4) Western hegimony precluded the Islamic world from taking its rightful place as a world power.
Not a single mention of the ever-popular "poverty" or "dispair" that so easily rolls off the tongue of the MSM as reasons for "hatred".
Osama Bin Laden himself tells us this in his 1996 "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." This fatwa is printed for everyone to read at www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm.
Where this author sums up bin Laden's fatwa and the reason he "hates" the west and the US in particular:
To sum up: Bin Laden is at war with the United States because it intruded into the holy land and later invaded sacred Iraq. These actions, condemned in the Quran he says, were sufficient cause for him to take up arms against the United States.
It has nothing to do with anything other than who the US is. It is either them or us. Bin Laden and those who follow him have sworn it. Only the useful idots in the West try to deny it.
Shanks is basically an anti semite it appears...one of those Ritter fans - a loser and ignorant about the history of islamic terror. An atrocious writer too.
The money angle should not overlooked either.
Agreed. This guys view of history includes blinders.
Cornpone's summary of this article is great! Well done, Cornpone!
Mr. Shanks may have a personal problem in that he clearly is not getting enough bran in his diet and his thinking mechanism is clogged!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.