Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeesh. The people who killed thousands on 9/11 were Muslims. However... and you should really try to take some time and think about this... most Muslims have next to nothing in common with those people. You may as well say "Humans kill thousands of Americans on 9/11, yet our President is concerned with OUR image as seen through their eyes."
Just as true. Just as accurate. Just as misleading.
Continue to conflate. While you're at it, maybe you could meet a few actual Muslims. I could introduce you to a few if you'd like.
My whole point is that our image is bad in EVERYBODY'S eyes...not just the Muslim world...yet ol' BHO specifically says he wants to better our image in their eyes. Something is backwards here.
Why are they, the peaceful Muslims, not trying to better THEIR image in our eyes? I mean, 100% of the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim. Most Americans, whether they admit it or not, look at Muslims with a hint of suspicion b/c most terrorists are Muslim (Note: I did not say most Muslims are terrorists). Where are the peaceful Muslims to denounce all of those cowardly acts? I never see any Muslim leaders doing that...you'd think they would constantly try to distance themselves from the radicals, yet I never see it.
I'm sure your argument will be that the Muslims you know are fine people and that they don't need to try to better their reputation b/c its only a small % that are bad guys. My answer would be, then....why does Obama have to apologize on behalf of all Americans and try to better our image with them...not all of us are bad guys either?
John Sidney McCain didn't say that he's using his middle name to appease the Anglo community.
Obama did.
I've read the OP's link. Obama never said anything like what you claim. Perhaps you can find the quote?
He said he would work to repair our reputation with the Muslim community. Separately, he was asked if he'd use his middle name, and he answered that he would, because it was tradition.
Please prove that you didn't make up the link between them.
My whole point is that our image is bad in EVERYBODY'S eyes...not just the Muslim world...yet ol' BHO specifically says he wants to better our image in their eyes. Something is backwards here.
Why are they, the peaceful Muslims, not trying to better THEIR image in our eyes? I mean, 100% of the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim. Most Americans, whether they admit it or not, look at Muslims with a hint of suspicion b/c most terrorists are Muslim (Note: I did not say most Muslims are terrorists). Where are the peaceful Muslims to denounce all of those cowardly acts? I never see any Muslim leaders doing that...you'd think they would constantly try to distance themselves from the radicals, yet I never see it.
I'm sure your argument will be that the Muslims you know are fine people and that they don't need to try to better their reputation b/c its only a small % that are bad guys. My answer would be, then....why does Obama have to apologize on behalf of all Americans and try to better our image with them...not all of us are bad guys either?
Because our country has attacked several of theirs. And before that, we overthrew their leaders and installed one's more to our liking. So ... individuals committed a crime against Americans. The religion does not need to apologize for that. Our nation violated international treaties and norms, and attacked them based on lies. Our nation needs to make that right.
Our reputation is bad around the world, sure. But it's worse among the Muslim nations.
First of all I DO think that the Muslim world HAS let their religion be hijacked by their most extreme members - at least to certain degree. The moderate leaders of the religion SHOULD be speaking out a lot more than they appear to be doing - and the end result is that the image of Islam has been given a black eye. There are probably several reasons for this. First off, I suspect that many Muslims have been a bit intimidated by the radical elements in their midst and may be afraid to speak out.
Secondly, even among many moderates there is probably some degree of sympathy for at least SOME of the goals of the radicals (if not their tactics). I am referring here to point that Idahoqie brought up about US meddling in the Arab World. The fact of the matter is that historically, US foreign policy has NOT generally been about spreading Democracy but rather protecting US interests. I'm not specifically picking on the US about this - the fact of the matter is that ALL nations do this to a certain degree. Countries ALWAYS watch out for their own interests (and there is nothing specifically wrong with that).
The difference between most other nations and US is that the US has the military capability (and thus political clout) to enforce US interests around the world to a degree most other nations can only dream of. This often translates into the US instigating the overthrow of one foreign government (that may be less than friendly towards US interests) and the installation of another "more agreeable" leader. Now in of itself, this would not be quite so bad if the incoming leader ran the country in a Democratic fashion (ie, setting up fair elections then stepping down etc) - but generally this has NOT been the case, with the newly installed leader simply becoming another despot - one in this case, put in power and kept in power by US aid.
So what happens when these brutal dictators begin abusing their people (using US supplied weapons and with US political backing)? Well, the question can be answered quite simply by imagining how Americans would feel if say, the Chinese backed a newly installed dictator HERE in this country. We would not like the Chinese very much. In fact, we would HATE the Chinese. This is EXACTLY what happens in many countries around the world - and happened specifically in places like Iran - where the Shah - a brutal dictator - was installed with US backing and support. We knew the Shah was a dictator but the fact of the matter is that we considered a strong bulwark against Soviet expansionism to be more in our interests than a Democratic Iran was in our interests, so we simply looked the other way at his brutality - we would voice complaints but not do anything that had any real teeth to it to stop the abuse (kind'a sounding like US policy towards Pakistan until recently?). So with this in mind, is it any surprise that when the Shah was overthrown and a new government came to power that the government was strongly anti-American? The fact is, our support of the Shah drove people into the arm of the Radical Islamists. They worked to overthrow a brutal dictator and delivered on that promise. The fact that THEY rule brutally too doesn't changed the fact that the US was also associated with brutality in Iran.
When you combine these types of occurences with our strong US support of Israel (the Palestinian's obviously have a lot of sympathy in the Islamic World) it makes the US look like a pretty bad bully and so it's not surprising that the people of the Arab World distrust us and our motives (I mean let's face it, historically our motives have NOT been to achieve anything to THEIR advantage, but rather typically to OUR advantage and to THEIR detriment).
So, the fact is, the folks decrying the US do indeed have plenty of ammunition to stir up resentment towards the US - so it's no surprise that our image has taken quite a beating over there and that there are a lot of people in the Arab World who have at least SOME sympathy with the terrorists targeting the US (if not perhaps their tactics).
This is where rebuilding the US image in that part of the world comes in. Now in all fairness, Bush HAS tried to do that a bit. We HAVE worked to install some form of true Democracy in Iraq after overthrowing a brutal dictator. The problem is, the US image was already pretty awful and Bush made so many mistakes that folks there STILL do not trust us. IF Iraq can be successfully converted into a true Democracy AND US forces WITHDRAW from Iraq (rather than set up a permanent US presence (which will look like an occupation to steal Iraq's oil)) then Iraq CAN go a long way towards repairing the US image (it won't be enough to fix the image completely after so many decades of missteps on our part, but it WILL help move us in the right direction). I have a lot of misgivings that going into Iraq was the right move - and certainly I think the operation itself was BADLY BUNGLED (at least until recently) but I DO think Bush had pretty good motives (I don't think it was his intention to install another dictator - then again in times past when we did that, it wasn't specifically our intention to install a "bad guy" either - it just tends to work out that way).
So, if we wish to undermine support that the radicals enjoy in the Arab World, we have to show the ARAB PEOPLE (and Muslims in general) that the US is NOT their enemy. The fact is, we cannot simply kill all the terrorists (that's a WAY too simplistic approach) because for every one that we kill there are plenty more angry Muslims around the world to take their place. Nor can we occupy the entire Muslim World. We simply don't have the resources - already just the invasion/liberation of Iraq has gone a long way towards bankrupting the US - and much of the money to fund the war has had to be borrowed from countries such as China. What good does it do to occupy foreign countries to battle terrorism if in the process we sell our own to other foreign powers. No, military power ALONE will NOT win the War on Terror. We MUST change our image among the people the terrorists recruit from so that they are less likely to flock to the terrorists' cause.
This is really all just common sense - and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out.
So, Obama being sure to use his middle name is NOT giving in to ANYBODY - it's part of a broader range of psychological warfare aimed at repairing the US image in the Arab World and undermining support for the terrorists there. This is NOT a war we can win by force of arms alone.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 12-12-2008 at 09:13 AM..
Why are they, the peaceful Muslims, not trying to better THEIR image in our eyes?
Because there are 1.61 billion Muslims and I suspect that they really don't get a rat's behind what you think (not that I can blame them).
Quote:
Most Americans, whether they admit it or not, look at Muslims with a hint of suspicion b/c most terrorists are Muslim
You need to get out of the sticks and move to a city like Philadelphia were there are thousands of Muslims who walk the streets everyday and nobody, I repeat nobody gives it a second thought.
Quote:
Where are the peaceful Muslims to denounce all of those cowardly acts? I never see any Muslim leaders doing that...
Sort of like the tree falling in the forrest, if no one is listening (like yourself) then there is no noise. But on the off chance that you have never been near a forrest...
It IS true that some in the Muslim World ARE speaking out and condemning the terrorist element. It's not NEARLY as frequent as it SHOULD be though.
However, your post DOES bring up a valid point (one I meant to touch on but ended up leaving out) - and that's the fact that overall, Americans really have NO CLUE about what is going on in the world outside of the US (or even in the US to a large degree). This is because so many Americans get their news from either the broadcast networks or the US cable news sources. The fact is, BOTH of these sources do a TERRIBLE jobs keeping Americans informed. Broadcast network news tries to cram everything important happening around the world into a measily half-hour. Does anyone REALLY think that every significant event around the world can be explained in 22 minutes (there are probably 8 minutes of commercials).
As for the cable new networks - yeah they ARE on 24 hours a day, but after you remove the commercials, the repeat programs that occur during the later hours, and the commentary programs you MIGHT end up with 6 hours of REAL NEWS. This would still be quite a bit of time - except that they repeat the same set of stories every hour (or even half-hour) OVER AND OVER AGAIN. So, in effect, Americans may have several choices of 24 hour news sources, but the truth is, they are still only getting perhaps an hour's worth of new news each day - even if they watch the news all day long - so it's not at all surprising that Americans would not have a clue about Islamic moderates speaking out even if they did do so (and in SOME cases - as you showed - they HAVE been).
The truth is, Americans are TERRIBLY IGNORANT about the outside world - even about our own country really, but EXTREMELY so about the rest of the world - and would be MUCH better off if we spent even an hour a day watching the BBC News - where they cover DIFFERENT stories in much greater depth than ANY US-based source.
I've read the OP's link. Obama never said anything like what you claim. Perhaps you can find the quote?
He said he would work to repair our reputation with the Muslim community. Separately, he was asked if he'd use his middle name, and he answered that he would, because it was tradition.
Please prove that you didn't make up the link between them.
Appease, reboot, same difference. As I said, I have no problem with him using his middle name. I do it all the time. But I do it for myself, not to appease or reboot my image or the countries image with anyone.
Following tradition is fine, but again not to reboot.
FOX News WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama says he will try to "reboot America's image" among the world's Muslims and will follow tradition by using his entire name — Barack Hussein Obama — in his swearing-in ceremony.
Appease, reboot, same difference. As I said, I have no problem with him using his middle name. I do it all the time. But I do it for myself, not to appease or reboot my image or the countries image with anyone.
Following tradition is fine, but again not to reboot.
FOX News WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama says he will try to "reboot America's image" among the world's Muslims and will follow tradition by using his entire name — Barack Hussein Obama — in his swearing-in ceremony.
So I take it that means you think America's image is just fine then?
Appease, reboot, same difference. As I said, I have no problem with him using his middle name. I do it all the time. But I do it for myself, not to appease or reboot my image or the countries image with anyone.
Following tradition is fine, but again not to reboot.
FOX News WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama says he will try to "reboot America's image" among the world's Muslims and will follow tradition by using his entire name — Barack Hussein Obama — in his swearing-in ceremony.
Taking a statement out of context is so easily debunked. His use of 'reboot' was not made regarding his use of his middle name.
Quote:
Obama promised during his campaign that one of his top priorities would be to work to repair America's reputation worldwide, and that one element of that effort would be a speech delivered in a Muslim capital.
He pledged anew to give such a speech, though he declined to say whether it would happen during his first year in office.
"It's something I intend to follow through on," Obama said in an interview published Wednesday in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. "We've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular. So we need to take advantage of that."
This is what he said about using his middle name,
Quote:
Asked if he would drop his middle name during his inauguration on Jan. 20, the president-elect said he would not.
"The tradition is that they use all three names and I will follow the tradition, not trying to make a statement on way or another," he said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
