US warns Americans from traveling anywhere and doing anything.

[jeff]

I take your point - the former Soviet Union is under frequent attack. That's not a contest I wish my country to win... However, I meant that the world basis of opinions seems to much less frequently point the finger at them than at the US (and Israel, for that matter).

I also agree that the Al Qaeda terrorists, and indeed the London bombers as well, are not lumpenproletariat - they're relatively, sometimes extremely well educated and wealthy.

[Moses]

Also, many people feel they don't want the U.S. involved in their country's business. Even if the U.S. is not involved militarily (which some Americans apparently think is the defining characteristic of "involved") in a particularly country itself, the nature of the U.S. government to project it's economic and military into all other regions of the world and spheres of influence in order to serve it's own interests is irksome to residents of those regions. Being a powerful entity as it is, in the econo-military sense, the U.S. has the ability to express its interests all over the globe. Places like North Korea may make China, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. uncomfortable, but African governments largely don't care, because the DPRK has neither the means nor reason to bother them.

-Da Mose

[Moses]

Ok, it's easy to say that terrorists hate America because of our freedom and our beliefs. It boosts our collective ego and reduces the terrorists to barbarians. This is something which has been done for millenia.

This time, interestingly, it's almost right.

Now, first off, we have to stop thinking of organizations like Al-Qaeda in the terms of a single, government-like entity. Why? Because Al-Qaeda and similar organizations are comprised of thousands of members with different reasons for being part of those organizations. Yes, it is true that the "heart" of Al-Qaeda believes that Western influences are dangerous, evil and should be elminated from the historical lands of Islamic domination. These are the leaders, planners, extremists sheiks and recruiters of Al-Qaeda and others. These are the people that hate "our" freedoms and beliefs.

Now, these people are the "brains" of Al-Qaeda's organization. Who are the muscle? Who actually blows themselves up or picks up a gun? Mostly, young men. Like most politicized young people, they are very angry.

For what reason to they have to be angry?

This is where the "they hate our freedom" idea falls apart. Most people are radicalized, not born radical. This happens in largely two environments:

1) In Europe, where young, impressionable students or educated, proffesional workers become influenced by radical clerics (socio-political radicalization).

2) In Islam-dominated countries or European slums languishing in poverty (economic radicalization).

In socio-political radicalization extremist groups appeal to an impressionable recruit's sense of anger by citing examples of Western political acts "against" Islam and Western social anti-values (from a fundamentalist Muslim's viewpoint), such as:

1) The United States' historic support of the Israeli State. In 2004 the UN Security council proposed a resolution condemning an Israel assasination which also killed 65 Palestinian civilians. The United States was the only member state to vote 'NO' (I believe there were some abstentions). The U.S., being a Big Five nation, killed the resolution. This resolution would have placed no legal burdens or sanctions on Israel. The U.S. could have abstained, but this action was viewed by those in the Islamic world as further evidence of one-sided support of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in addition to the fact that Israel is fighting with largely American-built military equipment and money, and that Europe was responsible for the creation of the Israeli state in 1948.

2) Western clothing, media and consumerism being seen as self-destructive or amoral. It is with these issues the extremists also introduce the more extreme concept of Democracy being destructive as well, because they are "alien" to "true Islam" (heavy Wahabist influence can be seen here). Western clothing and media also being somewhat "alien" or not invented by Islamic people is a bridging concept to the more extreme ideas.

In economic radicalization the radicals attempt to incite anger by placing the blame on Western countries for economic ills. However, amongst the economically disadvantaged, there is already a great deal of dissatisfaction with life in general, and a cleric simply has to promise a better life will result if one follows their (extremist) view of religion. They can also point to the arguments listed above, or place blame on the west for breaking up the Islamic caliphat with the crusades (still an issues in many West Asian countries) and the division of the Ottoman Empire after it fell in WWI.

To simply say they (always a dangerous word) hate our freedoms is self-defeating, because, though we cannot change the perceptions of most extremists, we can change the policies which they use to draw their strengh (that is, radicalize and recruit more potential terrorists).

Understanding is the key to our future victory.

Never say you don't understand someone before you say something about them. I understand why people think it is right to blow themselves up for their religion. It does not change the fact I think they're dead wrong.

-Da Mose

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

LOL... I'm sorry to laugh at your outrage Epee pox, but it is amusing to me, that you are defining to someone FROM another country WHY someone from another country dislikes/hates you. I'm not saying that your perception of my presumption is right or wrong... just amusing....

Then shouldn't your original question be directed towards people who are not from the U.S.? You asked for our perceptions...

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

You did answer my question. I expected an answer similar to yours, so that answers the question "Is there talk of change?"

Thank-you.

I infer from your response that you believe the U.S. should do more, correct? If so, what? Do other people live their lives for the"common good" of the world, or do they try to do best for themselves first and then do what they can for their neighbors? Which is the more logical strategy?

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

Since dislike for Americans (or Iraqis, or whoever…) usually arise out of a particular event or decision made (at least it does in my country). I just wondered if there were Americans on F-Net that were able to provide with a snapshot of how the average American feels about this.

Who you calling "average"?!? I post on F-Net!

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Moses

Also, many people feel they don't want the U.S. involved in their country's business. Even if the U.S. is not involved militarily (which some Americans apparently think is the defining characteristic of "involved") in a particularly country itself, the nature of the U.S. government to project it's economic and military into all other regions of the world and spheres of influence in order to serve it's own interests is irksome to residents of those regions. Being a powerful entity as it is, in the econo-military sense, the U.S. has the ability to express its interests all over the globe. Places like North Korea may make China, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. uncomfortable, but African governments largely don't care, because the DPRK has neither the means nor reason to bother them.

-Da Mose

So because we are so successful we should go around with our hat in our hand, begging forgiveness for being an upstart culture who upset ancient, regal, long-established societies? I'd rather deal with being thought of as arrogant...

[Moses]

Did I say we should beg forgiveness? Put your presumptions aside and you may find yourself much less angry at people and life in general.

What I'm saying is the manner of American politics has been heavy-handed and uneven, and that a re-adjustment of policy can be employed to lessen tensions, pressure our regional allies to quell anti-Americanism and eventually let time burn out the hatred.

Every nation should work to protect its own pragmatic interests. A nation such as the United States, being as powerful as it is, necessitates involvement in many regions of the world in order to stabilize its position as a world superpower. However, there are means to do so without angering foreign parties. For one, instead of operating on ideological principles (which have been advocated by the Christian right, who are a large part of the reason why U.S. support of Israel has been so one-sided), a nation should get involved in other parts of the world only if it is in the best interests of the State and the People. Tyranny and totalinarianism are unfortunate byproducts of human civilization, but the State should not be comitted to stamping out all tyranical governments just because "our" morals tell us to do so (this way of thinking runs contrary to Libertarianism, Neo-Conservatism and Liberal Internationalism, all of which have dominated American politics to varying degrees in the past several decades, even as the Machiavellians and Bismarckians operated in the bureacracy and the military). Also, if the State feels the need to maintain a military presence in a region of the world, they must do so subversively, because people don't like it when they can see foreign militaries close to their native lands (the highly visible presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia is another cause of tension exploited by Wahabists and other fundamentalists). How does the State accomplish this? In the Naval sense, submarines observing marine movements are useful. Also, in many places in Eastern Asia, the United States has contracted private airports for use of certain runways at certain times. This "limited presence" ensures that a military force is always at hand to get involved in an unstable situation as soldiers and equipment in more friendly and tolerant ports (Gaum, Japan, Singapore) mobilize.

-Da Mose

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Then shouldn't your original question be directed towards people who are not from the U.S.? You asked for our perceptions...

I am interested in hearing how Americans feel about how they are perceived. My question was directed to Americans.

It appeared that Epee Pox was attempting to tell me how non-Americans feel about his country.... I found this amusing as I am not American. I cannot speak for other countries, but I have a sense of how many Canadians feel. I don't feel qualified to speak for other countries, so I found it amusing that Epee Pox did.

Perhaps I have a weird sense of humour, but it made me laugh.

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by gojujay

I infer from your response that you believe the U.S. should do more, correct?

Nothing like that at all. I was curious if my perceptions were correct. They appear to be. That was all I was stating. I am not informed enough on your politics and policies to judge whether what your government is doing is right or wrong.

I was thanking the people who responded to my question... I'm Canadian eh?

[reposte]

Moses, your whole speech is a testimony to the fact that you are looking at this confilct with your own westernised ideas while trying to appear as if you're looking at it from some sort of post colonial point of view.
Your presupposition on the identity of suicide bombers are contraty to reality and reflect merely your bias of the nature of the conflict.

Somehow, despite it all, the Israeli issue always comes out as a catalist.
That is also crap. It's just a way for people who have a strong view on the matter regardless to whatever happens, to maintain that view in face of reality.
Whenever conflict occured in the middle east, it was resolved in the Middle East. the AQ terrorist hit Egypt, which similarly to the kings of France regards itself as the Most Islamic nation, not because of Israel - you might be interested to know that Egypt is regarded by many as the most hostile state to Israel in terms of public opinion - but because it has problems with Egypt's foreign oplicy regarding the u.s nd mainly - because it thinks Mubaraq's regim is too hostile to Islam and advances western turism, for example.
The basis of ideology for Al Quaida is Miltant Islam, nothing else that seemingly secular western point of views can identify themselves with, and unfortunately, indeed attempt to while yet burying their dead.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Moses

a re-adjustment of policy can be employed to lessen tensions, pressure our regional allies to quell anti-Americanism and eventually let time burn out the hatred.

With respect: why?

Let me personalize this question for Fencergrl. If you learn that someone dislikes you, do you (a) immediately set about examining your own behavior and determine to change it so that the person will start to like you, or (b) shrug, lift your palms and realize that it's probably not worth losing sleep over?

Myself, I tend toward the latter. I suspect that most people do. And I think that the general attitude in the US, both amongst the populace and the government, reflects the latter more than the former as well.

[Beeblebrox]

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in WELT AM SONNTAG (Sunday World): "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreement.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivate by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt UN. Oil-for-Food program. And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement... How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolf Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizeswhat is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

With respect: why?

Let me personalize this question for Fencergrl. If you learn that someone dislikes you, do you (a) immediately set about examining your own behavior and determine to change it so that the person will start to like you, or (b) shrug, lift your palms and realize that it's probably not worth losing sleep over?

Myself, I tend toward the latter. I suspect that most people do. And I think that the general attitude in the US, both amongst the populace and the government, reflects the latter more than the former as well.

Then stop complaining about people blowing up bits of your country. Same as there's no point complaining that the people that dislike you aren't going to hire you for a job, won't invite you to their parties and will write nasty messages about you on the bathroom wall if you just shrug your shoulders and ignore the conflict.

The original problem is that terrorists are pissed off at you. A couple of things you can do in that situation, same as any situation where people are pissed at you.

1) Kick their arse
2) Ignore them
3) Confront them and try to come to a truce.

The US has chosen option number 1, which is fine. It does, however, lead to the perpetual need to continually kick arse unless you can figure out a way to bind those you've defeated to yourself in some useful way. If your opponent simply refuses to admit defeat, then you have to destroy them. If you can't destroy them, then you have to negotiate or ignore them.

The other question is WHY are they pissed at you. Jealousy? Certainly. Perceived injustice? Absolutely. Real physical harm to them and their families? You bet. Ethical differences? Yup. Pride? That too. Justice? Uh huh. Righteous Defense of the Downtrodden? Yup. Lack of Communication? Again, yup. Peer pressure? This too. Challenge? Yup.

Anyone that says that they simply hate you and that's why they are attacking your citizens is simplifying the issue into triviality.

James.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

With respect: why?

Let me personalize this question for Fencergrl. If you learn that someone dislikes you, do you (a) immediately set about examining your own behavior and determine to change it so that the person will start to like you, or (b) shrug, lift your palms and realize that it's probably not worth losing sleep over?

Myself, I tend toward the latter. I suspect that most people do. And I think that the general attitude in the US, both amongst the populace and the government, reflects the latter more than the former as well.

It depends on who dislikes you. Could there be a valid reason why they dislike you? What if there is a general consensus such as your entire neighborhood disapproves of your roaming the neighborhood breaking car windows and setting fires to garages or houses?

Before you shrug and lift your palms up, wouldn't you at least attempt to decide who is at fault? What if the person that hates you provides you with a valuable service and suddenly refuses to provide it. Assuming you can't get the service somewhere else are you going to beat them up and steal it? Tie them up and hold them in your basement?

We don't have to turn introspective every time some criminal with no respect for human life decides to blow up a train or airplane. It doesn't hurt to review policies every now and then and look for better ways to defuse potentially volatile situations.

When you decide to set what you consider a common standard for behavior/morality, wouldn't you like to ensure that at least by your definition, you live up to that standard? Otherwise, it's a case of the "pot calling the kettle black."

Resentment, jealousy, hatred sometimes don't need a reason other than the "you are different than me" mantra. If that's the case, shrug your shoulders, say "what are you going to do about it", and continue your life as usual. Every now and then, they may have a valid point. Would it hurt to at least consider it?

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Moses

Did I say we should beg forgiveness? Put your presumptions aside and you may find yourself much less angry at people and life in general.

What I'm saying is the manner of American politics has been heavy-handed and uneven, and that a re-adjustment of policy can be employed to lessen tensions, pressure our regional allies to quell anti-Americanism and eventually let time burn out the hatred.

So we examine how we've offended people and try to make ammends? Let time temper the terrorists and people who don't like us and maybe they'll just forget about us? Still sounds like we're asking for forgiveness for our successes...

[quote=Moses]Every nation should work to protect its own pragmatic interests. A nation such as the United States, being as powerful as it is, necessitates involvement in many regions of the world in order to stabilize its position as a world superpower. However, there are means to do so without angering foreign parties. For one, instead of operating on ideological principles (which have been advocated by the Christian right, who are a large part of the reason why U.S. support of Israel has been so one-sided), a nation should get involved in other parts of the world only if it is in the best interests of the State and the People. Tyranny and totalinarianism are unfortunate byproducts of human civilization, but the State should not be comitted to stamping out all tyranical governments just because "our" morals tell us to do so (this way of thinking runs contrary to Libertarianism, Neo-Conservatism and Liberal Internationalism, all of which have dominated American politics to varying degrees in the past several decades, even as the Machiavellians and Bismarckians operated in the bureacracy and the military).

Doesn't it make sense to destroy threats while they are still minor? Churchill's quote is running through my head right now...

Originally Posted by Moses

Also, if the State feels the need to maintain a military presence in a region of the world, they must do so subversively, because people don't like it when they can see foreign militaries close to their native lands (the highly visible presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia is another cause of tension exploited by Wahabists and other fundamentalists). How does the State accomplish this? In the Naval sense, submarines observing marine movements are useful. Also, in many places in Eastern Asia, the United States has contracted private airports for use of certain runways at certain times. This "limited presence" ensures that a military force is always at hand to get involved in an unstable situation as soldiers and equipment in more friendly and tolerant ports (Gaum, Japan, Singapore) mobilize.

-Da Mose

We have used covert ops before. When they are discovered the ensuing fracas is worse than operating in the open. Gary something... a U-2...

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Resentment, jealousy, hatred sometimes don't need a reason other than the "you are different than me" mantra. If that's the case, shrug your shoulders, say "what are you going to do about it", and continue your life as usual. Every now and then, they may have a valid point. Would it hurt to at least consider it?

Consider? No. Freeze, while trying to figure out the why of the problem, yes.