Titled Danger welcomes Americans abroad - hostages to U.S. policy (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20031020db.htm) it's an interesting article about an American travelling Asia, and his experiences there published on The Japan Times Online.

IMO it gives a couple of nice answeres on questions for the reasons for terroism and acts of violence against Americans. It invites to ponder about the reasons for the acts of terror against America, and for discussion.

Nice read, I have a couple of thoughts:

Indeed, polls by John Zogby find that Muslims and Arabs like many of the attributes of Western culture. They like American products and freedoms.Yeah, the 9/11 terrorists, the Holy Hammers of Islamic Jihad, sure liked American strippers and Budweiser.

The world has indeed seemed to become a very dangerous place for Americans, or anyone unfortunate enough to be caught by an act of terror. A short while ago I read an article that effectively proved (at least to me) that an American was actually far more likely to become the victim of a violent crime in any major US city than to be a casualty of a terrorist attack anywhere in the world. Statistically, you are 100 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to die from an act of terrorism, and that is using the inflated figures after the World Trade Center. I agree, that America does much to engender hate from all of the world. It was mentioned in another forum that even nations supposedly friendly to us are inwardly hostile and just waiting to see us fall. I personally feel that the overwhelming majority of Americans are crude, boorish, materialistic, short-sighted and jingoistic without really knowing why (I apologize to all our European friends on these boards for the "Ugly American"). I can only hope that the current US administration, which I actually support, can direct some of it's efforts to repairing the damage done, particularly with our "friends" in world, but I don't ever want to see an America like the one that I grew up with in the Carter years that is ineffectual an weak in the face of open aggression.

As far as living in fear, I will take the odds (far better than anything Vegas has to offer) and refuse to allow an imagined threat to change my life or beliefs. If by chance I ever am faced with death due to a terrorists bomb or gun or microbe I'll have to accept that the odds beat me and tell the terrorsist, "Go ahead, $#%#%$&!"

Thanks for the topic, Ragusa

[ October 25, 2003, 01:11: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

One Indonesian told me: "Even before, when America attacked Afghanistan, they were angry." Reading the link given from Ragusa, it occures to me, that it makes no references to the past, that is "why" they dislike some foreigners so much. But it states, that Indonesia is a predominantly muslim country.

My opinion is, they have in most countries "real" things, which they accuse among others Americans of. With "real" I mean things which really matter and not if Americans or Europeans hang around naked on the beaches of Florida and Spain. But things if they would be true "really" would matter. So, it would not matter if all things they would accuse "the Westerners" of are "really" true, but if they "really" believe it.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1697248.stm)
The United States gave Indonesia the green light for the bloody 1975 invasion of East Timor, subjecting the territory to 24 years of occupation, according to newly released state documents.

The documents record talks in Jakarta between then US President Gerald Ford, then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Indonesia's former President Suharto, a day before the invasion of East Timor.

Mr Kissinger has insisted over the years that the Timor issue never arose during the talks with Suharto.

Mr Suharto briefed Mr Ford and Mr Kissinger about his plans for the former Portuguese colony, and they expressed understanding for the proposal.

This marked the start of an occupation which left as many as 200,000 dead

Suharto, who enjoyed a close relationship with the US during much of his 32-year military rule, stepped down in 1998 amid corruption scandals and economic crisis.


And then later 1999: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1260544.stm)

Crowds in Jakarta protest against possible international intervention

The Indonesian economy faces the threat of collapse as investors and international aid bodies react to the ongoing crisis in East Timor.

US President Bill Clinton has warned Indonesia that it faces "very dire" economic consequences if it fails to stem the tide of violence in East Timor.

"But one way or the other it will be crashed by this if they don't fix it because there will be overwhelming public sentiment to stop the international economic cooperation.

Indonesia was warned on Thursday by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that it faced losing its financial aid if it did not solve the East Timor crisis.

More than $47bn has been pledged to Indonesia by the IMF, World Bank and other Western development bodies since the Asian economic crash of 1997.

The loss of Western aid - coupled with a pull-out by investors and economic sanctions - would have a devastating effect on an economy which is still recovering from the crash which saw its currency, the rupiah, devalued by 80% and its economy shrink by 16%.

Edit: Just thinking about it. I won't imply that Clinton was a "better" President. I only want to say, that Americans have real influence, a.k.a. "a big stick". The use of the "big stick" can have consequences. And maybe even more so when it's not always "consequent". Nor do I want to say, that Europeans are any better then Americans. I personally would not expect to be "liked" in any country which was once an European colony.

A Portuguese tour guide rues U.S. unilateralism. and

Many Americans erroneously believed that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 atrocities First, when would that Portuguese tour guide say that? They script their tours, so would he just fly off the handle and say "American pigs and their unilaterism. Listen to the UN!"

Second, why do americans beleive that? They havn't been given a shred of proof. Only that they know that Saddam is a crazy-ass dictator in "somewhere where it's hot" or "THE MIDDLE-EAST!".

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. What does that mean? Senior fellow?

The article doesn't really surprise me. Essentially, I have the reaction: "so, what's new?"

Different parts of the World at different times have been dangerous for Americans.

It was dangerous to be an American in Nazy Germany in the 1930's and 40's. It was dangerous to be an American in the Soviet Union in the 1960's It was dangerous to be an American in Southeast Asia in the 1970's. It is now dangerous to be an American in nations dominated by fanatical Islam
The whole problem arises when tyranny and freedom clash. This isn't the first time in our history this has happened. And, certainly, it won't be the last.

Look back ten years. The US were, in light of the Patriot Act even more free than today, and yet Americans were much less likely to get killed for their nationality. And international polls then didn't show the overwhelming antipathy toward the US they show today. So to say, the situation today is probably not like it is today because the arab world got less free suddenly.

I tend to think you're making it a little easy and convenient for you. Falling back on "They hate us because we're beautiful" or "They're just jealous" is sure flattering but oversimplified. Blaming it all on radical islam will result in you mixing up cause and effect.

Ragusa -

We're always hated somewhere on the planet. Radical Islam is just the latest.

Certainly, it is not the worst America has come up against.

As far as freedom is concerned, America is far more free today than it was during the Cold War and prior. Culturely, we have advanced quite a bit. The current debates in America are over gay marriage and if the Ten Commandments can be Constitutionally displayed on any government property. These are ideals that never even saw the light of day in years past.

As far as "we are hated because we are beautiful" is concerned, this is not how Americans see it. From our point of view, we are hated because liberty and freedom has allowed us to advance far beyond the Third World, and they, in part, resent it.

Remember that even the creation of Al-Jazeera in Qatar was a move that set the Middle East on fire (figuratively speaking). The mere idea that people could criticize the government or debate such topics as polygamy was unheard of and considered "American".

We rather enjoyed hearing about that.

As far as polls are concerned, we, no doubt, were hated in even greater percentages in Nazy Germany and Communist Russia.

[ November 04, 2003, 20:51: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

If you like to belive so ...

Blackhawk - That seems an odd post. Not that you are all that wrong, but in a roundabout way. It is odd that you fail to see that we are not liked because we have freedom and liberty as you suggest, but instead there is a perception that we have our freedom and liberty, as well as our high standard of living, at the expense of others. I don't think that is all that true, but because of our many foreign policy blunders it is widely believed in some parts of the world that we act in our own interest to the point of exploitation. The war in Iraq is an example of this: You may claim that it is to protect our liberty and promote the same in the Middle East; yet to many living there it is largely about America protecting its own material interest (oil) and empire building disguised as something more benign. But in this particular instance I'm inclined to agree with those outside the US. Although more often, I think our intentions are better than the results.

Conversely, how safe are certain minorities in America? I mean, nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Imperial Japan, and the entire Muslim world do not have a lock on hatred. I mean, Americans used to cheerfully lynch "niggers" and leave the bodies hanging from the trees as warnings. Mosques and Synagogues and Black churchs are frequently burned or defaced. That homosexual kid in Wyoming (movie, Boys Don't Cry) is one of many gays killed in America for no reason other than hate (I disagree with homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I think they should be killed).

Point is, as negative as it sounds, no one is 100% safe ANYWHERE, American or not.

To illustrate LKD's point, we locally just completed the trial and sentencing of man found guilty of murder. A few days after the 9/11 attacks, he got liquored up and decided to get some revenge on the "ragheads". He ended up shooting to death a very nice man who owned a convenience store and just happened to wear a rag on his head. He was not Arabic or Islamic, he was a Sikh (sp), and was an innocent victim to blind racism. (please don't take me wrong, he would be no less innocent had he been Muslim or Moonie)

I think that what we are seeing is that violence breeds violence, and America is not the perpetrator of all the violence in the world. We do make an easy target because we are ostentatious, wealthy, arrogant and truly guilty of some of the violence out there.

I think that there have been lots of times when it was more dangerous to be of a certain nationality or ethnic group...say a Jew in Palestine in 70AD or Germany in 1943, or even a Japanese American on the western US coast at the same time.

I hope that the level of violence will abate, and I agree that the US must act responsibly in the Global theatre...but honest Ragusa...you would have us pull back to our borders, adopt a policy of isolationism, and disassociate ourselves from influencing international affairs...everytime a world power has done that it has led to global war.

Some self restraint would sure help, and an even handed US policy towards Israel and Palestine, like what Bush Sr. did.
I can only recommend to listen to the non-militant Arabs when they tell what stinks about US policy. They point out reasons, rational reasons way beyond "they hate us because of our freedom" and other nonsense, about the same reasons that fuel the militants.

In the war on terror the US need allies, they can't be and look everywhere themselves. Cooperation in key in that fight as the enemy transcends borders. The actual US strategy of preventive war, that is actually: Attacking a country that is no threat but might become one, is not only criminal but self-defeating. It wrecks decade old alliances and induces even more opposition and anti-US sentiment. Bush's moronic tour of conquest has made the US and Americans less safe, not more.

I suspect there are a lot of reasons leading to the general dislike of Americans. It seems to me like most focus on the middle east and other Muslim nations, for obvious reasons. I have long heard suggestions that part of the dislike of the US is its connection to Israel. As the middle east heats up - this connection may or may not be more of a focus to those in Muslim nations. What I do know is that I'm paying more attention to what I would have considered rants previously and just thinking about them - not thinking that they may be valid (I think they're bunk) but thinking about how they affect and reflect the thinking of others in the world.

Some of these rants are evidenced by the recent furor in Germany where a public official recently described Jews as "a race of perpetrators." Shortly thereafter, a prominent German general sent a letter to the public official and thanked him for his courage assuring him that most Germans agree with his statements. (The general was dismissed, the politician was not).

Meanwhile, recently al jazeerah published an editorial by an American that included this:

While the majority of Americans may at present be walking around in a state of semi-hypnotic denial concerning the war in the Middle East and the role of Israel in all of it, the rest of the world most assuredly is not. Elsewhere, in nations not as infected with the corrupting influence of Zionist power, the people have maintained with perfect clarity their understanding of the picture posed by the connecting dots of political events. The rest of the world has been able to note names like Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Sharon, and a whole host of others of similar stripe going back 50 years, and whose ethnic and religious loyalties are no mystery. The “elephant in the room” described recently by a Jewish reporter at the New York Times, the elephant which America seems unwilling or unable to recognize is clearly visible to the rest of the world community whom America seems to disregard. Therefore, when Bush & Co. start talking about “freedom, liberation, and the war on terror,” the rest of the world which has not swallowed the blue pill knows that the marionette dancing in Washington DC is directed by hands attached to the centers of power in Tel Aviv http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/October/31%20o/let%20My%20People%20Go%20Mark%20Glenn.htm

Could this editorial have been published in the US, Canada, the UK, Japan etc? If media outlets give their consumers what they are asking for, what do such articles mean?

Personally, I think the idea of a Jewish conspiracy controlling the US and its actions is ridiculous. What I think is irrelevant however. What is relevant is the extent to which Average Joe on the streets of the middle east and other Muslim nations also believe the above.

I can't help but wonder to what extent the views expressed above reflect the views of many abroad. And if they accurately reflect the opinion of many - of an evil Zionist race of perpetrators that control the US - how much does that influence the view of the US?

I think one problem with a discussion about the cause of present dislike for America is that there is no cause. There are causes.

Laches,
recommended article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/356403.html), especially the last part: Arguing it takes an anti-Semite to call the Israeli government's policies of 2003 a danger to world peace is a contemptible cheapening of the term anti-Semitism.Just as criticising Bush Jr.'s in my opinion disastrous foreign policy of 2002/ 2003 doesn't make me anti-American.
You can call me many things but to dig out the issue of antisemitsm in response to my post is one step too far and an insult. An apology is in order, to say the least.

My post had nothing to do with yours. Look at the time my post was and yours. I started typing before your post was even in existence.

My post was about the belief that Israel controls the US government and wondering how much that is believed in Muslim nations.

If you can show me where I ever, in any post on this forum, ever referred to you or anyone else here as an anti-semite because of what they posted then let me go ahead and offer my most profuse apologies in advance. Otherwise, please allow me to suggest you not be so tender - it's not all about you.

EDIT - apppparently I can't spell apppologies.

[ November 05, 2003, 04:07: Message edited by: Laches ]

I have the flu, what ruins my mood and probably makes me thin skinned. :sick: Apologies taken.

My post was about the belief that Israel controls the US government and wondering how much that is believed in Muslim nations.From what I read on ArabNews.com and Al Jazeera, there is a strong belief in the Middle East the "Zionist" forces control the United States government. The slant appears to be that Jews control most of the world and are only interested in money and power.

In other words, the Middle East does sound like Germany.

As far as oil is concerned, Ragusa is right. The United States only pays attention to the Middle East because they do have oil. Otherwise, they would rank about the same as Africa and South America in interest.

But it is a double-edged sword. The Middle East hates that their biggest customer, the United States, is interested in their affairs. However, they enjoy our money and often forget, that without their oil, they would still be nomadic or very poorly developed.

It is odd that you fail to see that we are not liked because we have freedom and liberty as you suggest, but instead there is a perception that we have our freedom and liberty, as well as our high standard of living, at the expense of others.You have to look at how the Middle East perceives itself to understand how we earned that label.

Saudi Arabia, for instance, sees itself as the pinicle of civilization. The see their society as strongly religious, ordered, structured and noble. No advancement is needed and anyone who questions the system is obviously flawed in their thinking.

It is for this reason, that Saudi Arabia has the Religious Police (which they call the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice). People who violate the rules are subject to corporal punishment and even execution.

Now lets put the United States into the picture. Americans are decadent by their cultural standards: women's rights, voting, free press, secularism, debates, protests, ...

And then again, Americans have a high level of living, they are prosperous and their technology is far more advanced than the Middle East.

So, how did America do this? By cheating of course!

Given how the Middle East sees itself, The United States will be seen in this light irregardless of what it does. In sociology terms, its "ethnic centrism".

[ November 05, 2003, 01:30: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

What Laches commented on is a good example. Most of us would never believe that Israel dictates policy in DC, but our blunders in policy could lead those with only a one-sided media (like many are in the region) to believe that it could be possible. Ragusa is right when he says that a more even-handed approach would go a long way towards resolving America's problems in some parts of the world.

The problem is political (of course). Most Americans are not that savvy on foreign policy issues. The answer is typically, "let's just send the fleet." Shrub learned that the appearance of standing tough goes a long way in the polls. The downside is that once Americans start coming home in boxes the American public wakes up. Then the idea that there must be a better answer begins to take hold. Look at what happened in Lebanon, in Somalia. Even Reagan had more sense than to get us into something more than the public would stand for once the body count starts going up.

Edit: Blackhawk - I saw yur post after I had posted this one. Yes, but as unpopular as the Saudi regime is, many in the region believe that we help prop them up because it's one of our best friends in Opec.

There was a rumor that when the Saudi ruling family flew into Texas for their big pow-wow with Bush, in Crawford, that they would not even land here if there were any women controlers in the tower at the airport. What pigs!

[ November 05, 2003, 01:50: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Israel doesn't determine US policy. To the contrary. Reading A Clean Break (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm) or Coping with Crumbling States (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat2.htm) it rather seems to me that the same US extremists advising Israel have found their way to advise Bush Jr. as well.

What's striking is that a majority of the neocons actually aren't jewish, as is often and falsely claimed. They are staunchly pro-Israel though. The neocons have their vision of transforming the middle east, that is changing governments by force, and try to enforce their ideas - for example by actively undermining state department efforts that counter their ideology, like talks with Syria, Iran, North Korea or peace talks between Israel and Palestinians.

More on the neocons here (http://www.antiwar.com/video/lobe-video1.html).

While I do not find it credible that there is a zionist cult trying to dominate the world from Israel (and even if I did, it would not make me an anti-semite), is it really that hard to believe that those in power in Washington who are Jewish, knowing their lack of scruples beforehand, would support the pre-dominantly Jewish nation in any arising conflict which involved one?

To me this seems not only possible, but probable.

Edit: Ok, I just saw the last four posts. So what we have is a third party who are advising both the Israeliis and the Neo-cons. How far does their influence spread? What are their motivations? The Conspiracy deepens....

What's next, an Illuminatus reference? Any one-sided press will seize on convenient hooks to preach to the choir and to sway those not in the choir to their way of thinking. It is especially convenient when there are limitations to the audience hearing any other point of view. To use a completely different example, look at the drivel that Fox News spits out. That is basically crap too. This is no different, except that it is being published by Moslems.

I don't know why those world leaders can't all just settle their differenecs over a good game of C&C Generals: Zero Hour, we have;

USA Lasers- Britain
USA Superweapons- America
USA Air Force- Afganistan ;)
China Nukes- North Korea
China Infantry- Taiwan
China Tanks- China
GLA Toxin- Iraq
GLA Demolition- Palestein
GLA Stealth- Israel

There we have it, 9 player Deathmatch, All on All, shifting alliances encouraged.

The Winner gets the continent of their home origin plus one (1) other of their choice. European Union countries will be providing additional support to all players as required on a supplies collected/shifting kill-loss ratio basis.

South Africa will be awarded as the consellation prize.

LET'S GET IT ON! :D

Ragusa -

I know Israel doesn't control the U.S. Government; however, this is a belief that is popular within the Middle East. We might think it a tad silly and rather paranoid, but they do not.


Everyone -

If you are curious, "neocon" is a term that was born in the Middle East that puts a label on Pro-Israel conservatives in the United States. The word is a combination of neo and conservative, but basically means "American Zionist".

DMC - Yes, there were actually interviews with average Palestinians living in the West Bank after 9/11 who really believed that the attack was orchestrated by Israel, and that Bin Laden was completely innocent. Where would that kind of thinking come from? The power of media propaganda has become as strong as any of the "big battalions." But it goes even beyond that - in those kinds of places childern at a young age are indoctrinated into a kind of cult of hatered. There is great danger when politics, religion and the media converge. You think even some Americans would know that.

Ragusa - I don't think anyone here in the US believes for a moment that Israel dictates America's policies, except maybe the Klan.

I think with Israel unable to dictate Israeli policy, it becomes laughable to think they have any sway over ours. There was a day when perhaps there was a tangible sympathizing in the major media outlets, but since the demise of network and the growth of cable, that has even gone away.

I'm with Manus, I'll take USA Superweapons...we'll settle this like a bunch of gamers and quit this high-brow debate. :p

Excellent. I'll take the China Nuke General - I don't particularly care for North Korea, but they have the best units :)

who else is in?

And So it Begins....


[To keep this from being moved to the Playground, I would like to pose this question: We are aware of the hostility towards America. Regardless of the reasons for this, what can be done about it? We may say- 'they' have to change (and they could be anyone), but unless they agree, nothing can really be solved, so I'll split this up into two questions.

What should happen?

What can we do?

Also, does any of this seem likely as happening?

Thankyou, and remember; I have dibs on China Nukes]

I have long said that the US policy of pre-emption is destabilising, dangerous, stupid, granting in effect the thought dead right to go to war, lowering the line to start wars and making wars more frequent and the world actually less safe, for the pre-emptive actor in particular.

Here's a striking example why I think so: Putin reaffirms Russia's right to preemptive strikes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1504&ncid=1504&e=20&u=/afp/20031104/ts_afp/russia_putin_military_031104085034). President Vladimir Putin has reaffirmed his position that Russia can resort to preemptive military strikes because the policy is also practiced by the United StatesEDIT on 11/11/2003: Turkey also jumped on the pre-emptive bandwagon (http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/latimes23.html) on the kurdish issue, saying ... Turkey has the right to take preemptive action to defend its own security interests, just as Israel and the United States do.Yay! Quite a valuable US contribution to world peace. Every tinpot dictator, pouncing upon his neighbour country, can today say: "So what? International law my ass. It was a pre-emptive attack ... I am allowed to do so because the US do so!" :roll: :spin:

[ November 11, 2003, 12:11: Message edited by: Ragusa ]