This article is based on Gallup Study Preliminary Findings on opinions in Islamic countries. I suspect that the Gallup Report may receive considerable attention in the MSM. It contends that anti-Americanism and the opposition to US policy is based on "what we do" rather than "who we are." One finding of particular significance is that both moderate and extremist Muslims "admire" American technology, values and free political systems. However, there is not sufficient distiction drawn in nuances such as the differences betwenn "admire" and "envy" and "resent." I believe it is the latter to which the repondants are actually assenting. The Islamicists may admire Western values as a thief admires the wealth of his victim. What is good for the faithful may not be permitted for the infidel.
To: Nicholas Conradin
Islam was giving us problems as far back as Ike, but I guess he had his hands full with other problems, like the Korean war!
2 posted on
08/19/2006 8:22:02 AM PDT by
Coldwater Creek
("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
To: Nicholas Conradin
They have largely treated political Islam as a global threat similar to the way that Communism was perceived. The global threat consists of a global alliance of terrorist-supporting countries:
THE LIST PRIOR TO WOT: Syria, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Iran.
THE LIST TODAY: Syria, Iran, North Korea (Lebanon still being fought over).
Clearly, in spite of the MSM and liberal rantings, we are winning. Maybe things haven't moved forward as quickly as we would like, but you can't ignore the map and the fact that their side is shrinking and our side is expanding.
Why the GOP is not making this point is beyond me. Instead, they head for the bunkers every time Pelosi or Reid spew vomit.
3 posted on
08/19/2006 8:32:35 AM PDT by
massadvj
To: Nicholas Conradin
"Every US president since Jimmy Carter has had to deal with political Islam;"
Nope. Thomas Jefferson, the "Barbary Pirates". America's first war after the Brits.
4 posted on
08/19/2006 8:40:29 AM PDT by
angkor
To: Nicholas Conradin
![](http://www.hawaiiangecko.com/DrinkinCoffee.gif) |
"paranoid approach personified by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s" Just because McCarthy was paranoid doesn't mean that there weren't communists in our government as he proclaimed. Remember, even the Soviets claimed the Rosenberg's were on their payroll. I disagree with this author. He's claiming there is a political Islam separate from religious Islam, and that's a mistake. He is thinking with his secular westernized brain. Islam is a religion, a political unit, a government and a way of life all rolled into one package. Americans have no problem separating religion from government and freely submitting themselves to the rule of law as the overruling entity. Our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian philosophy and thank goodness not the Koran. Could you imagine the 1st amendment under the philosophy that non-believers are to be killed and anyone converting from Christianity to Hindu is to be killed! What the author is saying would be sensible if Muslims placed the Koran second to the laws of the land, but they are one in the same. He argues that Hamas was elected in a democratic fashion. Okay, I have no problem with that, but if the people elect a bunch of mobsters (or maybe I should say, more mobsters) and their administration writes laws that say it's okay to steal, run prostitution rings, rackets schemes and pump our children full of crack... is that a government that should be respected? Democracy as Americans define it means much more than the will of 51% of the people. That's why we are a republic not a democracy, and why we shouldn't accept groups as Hamas as a government. |
|
5 posted on
08/19/2006 8:42:55 AM PDT by
HawaiianGecko
(Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
To: Nicholas Conradin
It contends that anti-Americanism and the opposition to US policy is based on "what we do" rather than "who we are."
Of course it's related to what we do. The Nazis opposed Uncle Sam because we supported the British and Soviet war efforts, not with words alone, but with huge amounts of food, gasoline, trucks and war material. The Japanese opposed the US because we shored up Chinese resistance against Japanese occupation, again with food, trucks and weaponry. This wasn't about who we were - it was about getting us to bend to their will, and hopefully, in time, acquiring our lands for themselves. The difference between the Axis powers and the Islamic world is that Muslims don't have any hope of conquering us, so they're hoping to terrorize us into submission via their proxies - terrorist groups that supposedly subsist upon the kindness of strangers.
One finding of particular significance is that both moderate and extremist Muslims "admire" American technology, values and free political systems.
Actually, what they really admire is our wealth, which most think is derived from stealing from poor countries. The average Muslim thinks of the West's values as decadent and its free political systems as a mirage, which is why so many are turning to Islamists or fascists as their saviors. This view of Western political systems as one big con job is why many, perhaps a majority, think that 9/11 was carried out by Jews, while simultaneously viewing it as a warning to the West not push Muslims too far.
6 posted on
08/19/2006 8:48:13 AM PDT by
Zhang Fei
To: Nicholas Conradin
The article is full of crap.Western democracies along with the nation of Israel have tried hard to make a distinction between radical and peaceful Islam.Considering that "peaceful" Islam has had very little condemnation for the atrocities of the radicals,I would say they are getting the benefit of the doubt !!!
12 posted on
08/19/2006 8:59:21 AM PDT by
Obie Wan
To: Nicholas Conradin
Islam has been making wars ever since the time it's peadophile founder started drooling out his deranged ideas to his brain-damaged desert brethern.
To: Nicholas Conradin
*Snerk*.
It's only Harvard. You know, the place with the Kennedy School of Government.
They are influential but irretrievably *wrong*.
Cheers!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson