Why We Hate Them

The Evening Bulletin ^ | 10/06/2006 | Michael P. Tremoglie

[Miami Vice]

There are some Americans who opposed the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. They consistently opposed any military action we take against Islamists, Taliban, Baathists, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other similar groups - and those who harbor them.

They would rather blame our foreign policy for the ills of the world. Some have even gone so far as to claim we are responsible for what occurred on 9/11. One question they ask is, why do the Islamists hate us?

What they (and we) should be asking is why should we hate them? We have plenty of reasons.

First, the Islamists are ingrates:

Our military protected Muslims in Lebanon in 1982 and 1983. How were we repaid? Hezbollah killed 243 Marines, who were part of a peacekeeping force. The same Hezbollah that Democratic Congressman John Dingell recently said he was not for or against. (By the way, does anyone think it interesting that Pennsylvania Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz did not denounce Dingell?)

We protected Muslims in Kuwait in 1991.

We protected Muslims in Bosnia in 1995.

We protected Muslims in Kosovo in 1999.

Yet somehow, Islamists want people to believe we are the "Great Satan"?

The second reason we should hate the Islamists is because they want to annihilate us. They want to obliterate the United States of America and everything for which it stands - to quote a phrase. They say we prevent them from annihilating Israel and prevent the imposition of an Islamic theocracy in Arab countries and the rest of the world.

This is evinced by three documents.

One is the ( Go to the website http://www.theeveningbulletin.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17293215&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6 once again I was unable to post the whole article

[Axhandle]

The history of the world is full of bloodshed, plunder, rape, and tyranny. It is not pretty, but it is how we got to where we are today. The prosperity and freedom of western civilization and other modern nations is not the natural order of things. It had to be fought for over hundreds of years. Some civilizations are farther behind in this struggle - much farther. It is due in large part to the built-in flaws of their religions, cults, institutions, et cetera. We cannot ignore those built-in flaws and assume that we can bequeath freedom and prosperity upon a people if we have enough money, love, and understanding. In order to believe in something a people must fight it out.

I am bothered by the steady stream of reports of dead Coalition Soldiers in Iraq. I am NOT bothered by sectarain violence in those countries, ie Sunni vs Shia, Taliban vs Afghan, et cetera. The strategy being pursued by our military leaders is a sound one (though I question the effectiveness and efficiency of those whom they task to implement it). We should be content to reduce the carnage wrought upon Coalition Soldiers and to let the Iraqi people take charge of their destiny, with the forces whom we deem most advantageous to our interests being the ones whom we work to give the greatest support to: the liberal, secular moderates. We must not be duped into believing that the violence in the mideast is our fault or that we are exacerbating the violence. We merely removed the check upon the peoples' impulses. No amount of money, love, or understanding will miraculously bring harmony.

We have recognized the danger of a people, nation, or civilization that remains mired in the dark ages while the rest of the globalized world catapults itself into whatever lies beyond the information age and we have seen the need to be a catalyst to effect the necessary societal and civilizational change to drag the barbarians into the modern world. Now those peoples will have it out, just as our civilization did for hundreds of years.

Whether they hate us or why they hate us or whether we hate them or why is of little importance. Until the barbarians are dragged into the 21st century and their radical fundamentalist elements destroyed, the entire Arab/Muslim world will be a threat to the rest of civilization. It is our responsibility to either destroy them or be a catalyst for their change. The former may be preferable, but it will never happen, so we must focus upon the latter.

[Quix]

Thanks. Will try and remember that when I get home tonight.

[Cicero]

You are falling in with the Communist-Muslim explanation by blaming it on Israel as the #1 problem. Sure, that's one reason they hate us, but it's not the major reason. They just find it a useful propaganda tool to pretend that it is. If they managed to annihilate Israel, it wouldn't make a pin's worth of difference. They'd still hate us.

[Prime Choice]

BTTT.

[theDentist]

Which is what I said. They have many reasons, and I think our friendship and backing them up irks the hell out of them. That just MY opinion. Sheesh.

[Ouderkirk]

Kill them all and let G_d sort them out

[Vision]

Why We Hate Them

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth"

--Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations), San Ramon Valley Herald, July 1998

[csmusaret]

Say what you will about Pres Bush and/or the Iraq war, but he has been killing Muslims at a rapid rate. Shoot me if you want to, but I think that is a good thing.

[ladyinred]

So right. The Muslim hate everyone, always have always will no matter what. Their religion teaches them to and has from the beginning of time. Without Israel, they would still hate the rest of us. I am not particularly fond of them either, nor do I believe they are a religion of "peace."

[ladyinred]

I don't think Ivan was saying you were blaming Israel, I think he meant the Muslims were blaming Israel. I guess I shouldn't speak for him, but I read his post to you that way.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> The word hate has become epithetic in the past thirty years as it has been indiscriminately used to replace such common-sense terms as distrust, disgust, aversion, repulsion, caution, etc. until it has been turned into a defensive word which only has approbation when used to describe one's critics.

Hear, hear!

HATE is an ugly term that is over-used and thus loses effect as a result. HATE digs at the very basest, the lowest of human emotion: it should be reserved for the very, very few rather than applied generally.

Ours is a childish society that "hates" too frequently and too easily, yet fails to HATE the hateful things often enough, consistently enough, passionately enough.

(People "hate" broccoli, fer Petessake!)

People should require a license to HATE. Because most folk do not fully know what HATE means or what it entails. As such it is a dangerous substance not for general-purpose use.

*DieHard*

[MadIvan]

Thanks, you got it.

Regards, Ivan

[Fred Nerks]

"Because we support Israel. It's that simple."

In the aftermath of the London train/bus bombing, a young english woman was interviewed in the street and asked the same question. 'Why do you think they hate us?'

Her reply was the same as yours. 'Because we support Israel.'

This response has the effect of condoning the terrorist act. The mindset is if we stopped supporting Israel (i.e., if 'that shitty little country was wiped off the map) then the islamofascists would leave us alone.

Which begs the question; How many millions of Israeli citizens would she have been prepared to sacrifice?

And your statement, sadly, leads to the same question, you cannot escape this conclusion. What you indicate is a willingness to appease the islamofascists by abandoning support for a sovereign nation under attack.

Remember Czechoslovakia?

[norton]

You left out that 'hating the west' has paid off handsomely in 'palestine' and other middle eastern wallets...
'The west' is always willing to attempt buying off 'diverse' societies that make hostility their foreign policy.

Note 1: 'Because we support Israel' is bogus - they see Israel as a western/european construct, that's sufficient to earn their hatred:
if Zionism had been a Lutheran movement, they'd hate it only somewhat less.

Note 2: only somewhat does not equate the two, it only means that the conflict would not go away.

[Not just another dumb blonde]

Of course, I'd prefer it if God would smack them. Then they'd have to be mad at God.

[gogogodzilla]

No, if G-d 'smacked them', they would say that it was done because Muslims have not killed enough infidels.

Just look at what happened after the tsunami in Indonesia.

[Gondring]

Kill them all and let G_d sort them out

Nice anti-Protestant slur.

BTW, at what point did this discussion morph from "Islamists" to "Muslims"? The article is referring to Islamists.

[tsomer]

Sorry Dentist, but I do disagree.

The muslims hate Israel because Israel is a Western society: it is reasonable, egalitarian, democratic, creative, and industrious. It extends it's protections to all people within its borders, regardless of creed, etc. Our legal system leaves moral questions alone, believing that unless physical harm is done to an innocent, justice in this realm should be intrusted to God.

Israel is despised because it is civilized. The muslims are at war with civilization.

[REDWOOD99]

Sorry. I thought this was about the Yankees.

[kcvl]

Why we shouldn't care.