American Muslims angry at US stance on Mideast conflict

[leftchick]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060717/ts_alt_afp/mideastconflictus_060717234806

WASHINGTON (AFP) - American Muslims chafe at the US government's hands-off approach to Israeli reprisals and worry about countless relatives and friends trapped by violence in Lebanon.

US officials say Israel "has the right to defend itself," since its incursion into Gaza three weeks ago and air raids on Lebanon, but President George W. Bush's stance offends Americans who are Muslims or of Arab descent.

Early last week, a coalition of 11 major Muslim organizations publicly called on Bush to forcefully condemn the attacks on Gaza and to designate as "war crimes" the destruction of Palestinian civilian infrastructure.

After the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, the appeals for denouncing Israel have multiplied.

"Once again America's image and interests worldwide are being harmed by one-sided support for Israeli actions," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the largest US Muslim rights group.

"We're urging Muslims in America and other people of conscience to contact their elected officials to tell them that we have to have balanced foreign policy for the Middle East, one that is driven by American interests, not Israeli interests."

[goforit]

1. I would hope muslims know that nearly 70% of America doesn't like Bush

[adriennui]

4. i despise bush.

but i don't give a damn what american muslims think. religion shouldn't enter into this little fiesta. we are americans first....not jews, muslims, christians, buddhists, hindus, etc.

[Copperred]

6. hahahahahaahahah ...ur not living in America.....

Ok then get America out of the Middle East entirely.... which is where our Founding Fathers would have it...that would be the only American thing to do.


There are today VERY FEW AMERICANS...who are Americans first..... Teddy Roosevelt knew exactly what he was talking about when he said a hyphenated American is no American at all......

[bennywhale]

29. Meaning the only Americans are

WASPS because they turned their back on their original homeland, britain. Thats what that means

[Copperred]

46. Benny......no.....

It means all Americans should have been raised with a sense of staple American values that ensures religion is not to be mixed with state, that where you or your ancestors come from is not important -period, that foreign countries are foreign countries even if your heritage hails from them and never should your heritage countries take precendence over your new country, and that as an American you should do what you can to protect our interests first. OUR INTERESTS FIRST - this is not rocket science.

It has nothing to do with being a WASP. It has to do with protecting America from the traditions of ancient cultures and stresses of which America had nothing to do with until the last 50 years...50 years too long.

Today, America is involved a 5000 year+ old Abrahamic/Assyrian struggle that was not of our design or choosing. That may sound like an over-the-top statement to you, but it is the fact and when you see it in the context of the world that is shapping up - it is clear we should not be involved in it...it has nothing to do with us.

Once you realize your fighting a war that has no end, demands that America stoop to their intellectual level in thought it is clear we have no business, none-zero-zippo, being in the Middle East...this regardless of where you sit in America.

The only interest we have in the MIddle East is oil. Sadly that is not being honored. We have made so many enemies for ourselves in the ME that many of the masses would refuse to sell us oil if today free. Now imagine, had we never been that ideological puppy dog, the masses would not be against us for having enslaved them with their rulers, they would love us - still as the land of the free as they used too, and they would sell us whatever we want without claiming us as their oppressors. If we did not want to buy from a dictator here or a royal family there, great, so be it, the masses would not blame us for their problems as many of them rightfully do today.

[bennywhale]

49. Fairly true, but what you must accept is that the American way

of life has been built on raping other countries resources, supporting dictators who supply US with oil etc. Without this meddling in the ME, America would be a poorer country.

I for one would accept a poorer standard of living for a stronger moral position, would you???

And if you would do you think most Americans would???

The US has been brought up thinking the streets are paved with gold and anyone can have anything and any standard of living they like. This is not true, and the trade off is in the countries around the world the US has fucked over and continue to fuck over. The trade off is Poverty and war in Africa. The trade off is brutal dictators oppressing millions in the ME and central Asia. The trade off is again thr brutal rulers of not so long ago Latin America.

The American way of life is a fraud that has been bought at a cost to the rest of the world. they have suffered while the US prospered. Thats quite disgusting.

[Copperred]

54. Agreed on many points.....

Benny, I agree with much of what you say. But has not this cycle not seriously started post WW-II?

Slaverly aside, it seems we did not start actually helping corrupt elites oppress their masses until post WW-II with the begining of the military industrial complex and its global type of underpinnings.

I could be wrong about that...not an American history expert... Meddling is one thing...but this habit of actually helping governments oppress its people seems like a relatively contemporary American foreign policy notion, within the last 50 years. It appears with the victory of WW-II our elites took it to mean they were superior and able to use the world as they please thinking, even then, it would never end..thus their arrogant policies circa '45.

Had they taken the victories spoils in a different manner, once which preserved humblness with greatness in hand....things may have turned out very differently.....hmm...

It is funny, surely if we had fostered good relationsin the ME since 47, there is no question in my mind that the ME would be freely selling us oil, Persians and Arabs, without the associated baggage we have to deal with today.

[eggbeater]

8. I refuse to despise anyone.

I do pray that he realizes the harm he is doing and finds a way out without causing further damage to the U.S standing in the world.

and I will also say that it is time that the U.S stops backing Isreal with 20 billion or more every year.
I think that without the security blanket of the U.S, Isreal would work maybe a little harder at a peace treaty.
I also think that the main reason that the muslum world hates the U.S is because of our support for Isreal.

If the U.S stopped backing Isreal and the muslums still insisted that we should suffer their terrorist wrath, then at that time, and only that time would I agree that maybe the middle east needs to see a mushroom cloud.
But for right now? I think that we, or should I say our past and current administrations have brought this hatred to us with their consistantly failing approach toward peace in the middle east.

In other words, leave others alone to determine their own destiny, and if their destiny results in the loss of American lives or property, then we try to alter their thinking.

[Just Me]

9. There's more to the world hating us than that. I recommend,...

,...highly recommend, you grab a book called, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". We've been bullying the world, economically, and when others say "no" we send in special ops to take care of that. The anti-Americanism isn't just about Israel. That's merely a facet of what causes the world's negative view of this country. Most facets involve the U.S. government backing large U.S. corporacrats who will deal with the devil and have protected greedy despots.

[eggbeater]

10. then my theory

That we need to just pull back and recreate the U.S of the 50s minus the racist actions associated with that era, would be correct.

I dont think we need to shore up anyone, and we dont need to force our form of government on them either. We only have to respect their form of government and not try to change it.

the U.S had its greatest moments in the 50s and 60s. Our decline started with Viet Nam and has continued ever since.

[Just Me]

11. I would recommend reaching out to the world, playing by the same,....

,...rules of law and a commitment to treat one another with decency and dignity as we demand of the world.

Instead, our government-backed corporacrats act like barbarians, breaking the rules, making up laws as they go along.

Regressing to the 50's or 60's hardly represents the progress I've always envisioned.

[eggbeater]

16. This is what makes the forum worth while

We disagree, and try to show each other why we think as we do.

I do think that some of the best times this country ever had was in the 50s and 60s.
We were concerened with how the rest of the world was living, and did what we could to help without trying to rebuild their governments.
We manufactured most of our goods right here in our own country.
Most families were able to acheive the American Dream with only dad working, and much of the time, dad only had a high school education.

Today, both mom and dad have college educations, they both work and send the kids to daycare or have a nanny. They drive foriegn cars, watch a tv made in japan, wear clothing made in China, eat food brought in from Mexico or Argentina. In other words, a great portion of their income goes out of the country.
We send billions to every country that asks for it, and then we send troops in to overthrow any government that we feel is not up to our standards.

We dont care about sending men to the moon any more, or building the best car or TV or Stereo. We care about how rich the few on top can get by importing these items from other countries.

Open land is no longer a value to us, parks are being sold off for new developments of over priced homes.

We may have taken one minority into our society as equals, but we damn sure found another one to pick on.

This country needs an overhaul, and it has to start in our own backyard.

We send money to other countries to feed their poor because it looks good in the international community, Yet we drive by our own homeless that are forced to beg for change at intersections just so they can survive another day.

America has lost its vision, its course and its will to be the most desired nation in the world.

I say we go back to the same style of living that we had in the 50s and 60s when this country was able to survive on its own without the resources of other countries.

go ahead, slap me for this, but this is how I feel. If you dont agree, thats great. But I am seriously hard pressed to find solace in speaking to someone from India when I call to complain about the mistake on my phone bill.

Again, In any forum you will have people that dont agree, or feel that they have better ideas. What brings one forum above the other is how well those arguments are discussed.
I think that DU is one of the best, and I fully expect that you will explain why you do not agree with my ideas.

[bennywhale]

31. Going for those protectionist measures that

you describe leads to trade wars, disputes over resources, conflict and war. And, even though you may be right that more things were built in America, you gotta trade. That what the silk route was for thousands of years before America existed.

The problem is gluttonous consumption, which is promoted by the tiny rich elite you describe. This leads people to believe they have to work harder and have more money to consume more things. And that why clothes come from China etc. The west is now post industrial, we are service economies built, imo, on sand.

[bennywhale]

30. McArthy?

was that not in that golden era and/or late 40s. there are no golden eras

[CJCRANE]

44. The difference these days is that the "black ops" faction

has taken over the US govt and is in full view of the world. The so-called BFEE used to do things discretely behind the scenes but now "black ops"/psyops is pretty much official policy (e.g. torture, extraordinary renditions, warrantless wiretapping etc etc).

[The Stranger]

45. You "refuse to despise anyone" but think the Middle East may need to see a

mushroom cloud?

[kamtsa]

17. And 65% don't like terorists

[daleo]

19. Are you saying American Muslims are terrorists?

Or just Muslims in general?

[JackNewtown]

21. What percentage favor Bush's Israel-Palestine policy?

The American public is heavily pro-Israel, in an interesting contrast to the views of other Western nationalities, let alone non-Western peoples.

In the United States it doesn't pay politically be pro-Palestinian or even call for a more balanced approach--as Dr. Dean quickly learned.

[bemildred]

2. Let's hope they remember in November.

And can figure out who to vote for.

[JackNewtown]

23. Who would that be, though? Dems vs. Reps. on this

What is the difference between the two parties positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or even on this crisis with Lebanon?

The only top politician I have seen who has come out in favor of anything that isn't completely in line with the Bush administration on this is Republican Mark Warner. I don't thing American Muslims have forgotten about what happened to Howard Dean when he called for an even-handed Middle East policy.

[Olney Blue]

34. Are there two Mark Warners? Mark Warner from Virginia is a Democrat.

Welcome to DU, JackNewtown.

[JackNewtown]

38. My mistake, I meant John Warner

John Warner, the Senator from VA who chairs the Armed Services Committee.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Lets also remember

that Christians live in Lebanon and Palestine, too. I think everyone is suffering-there are peace activists, but their voices are drown out by those of hate.

[leftchick]

7. I have Catholic Lebanese friends

who used to support bush. I hope that has changed.

[kamtsa]

18. What's wrong with being Catholic? Why do you want him to change?

[leftchick]

26. lol! wow did you read that wrong.

I was hoping his support for bush has changed. I am Catholic BTW. A Liberal Catholic! :)

[Binka]

27. LC Isn't It Odd That The Poster Thought You Meant Changing Religion?

Not changing support away from Bush. Hmm now that is quite odd. BTW do a search and you'll see what I mean! Glass!

[IndianaGreen]

28. A Liberal Catholic was what traditional Catholicism used to be in US

before the Vatican started to crack the whip at those democracy loving Americans!

[leftchick]

33. yes

it is sad I have to add the word liberal. It is pretty obvious Jesus was a Liberal while walking this earth with the sick, poor, all of the people rejected from society. ... sigh.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Today Jesus is portrayed as a Wall Street financier

who says that in order to help the poor governments must cut the top tax rate to increase investments and unleash the entrepreneurial spirit that will trickle down to the poor.

[Just Me]

5. They're not alone. It's dispicable, the disproportionate destruction,...

,...by the Israeli government. I'm certain there's a good portion of Israelis who find its government's actions dispicable, as well.

The U.S. and Israel governments are MAKING people dislike/abhor/reject/oppose/dissent against them by their actions (their words being nothing but black-hole bs).

[IndianaGreen]

12. US Muslims slam Bush over Israel (Al-Jazeera)

This is something to ponder when it comes time for fight for a Democratic platform plank that calls for a balanced foreign policy for the Middle East, rather than the usual rubber stamping of Israel's actions.

US Muslims slam Bush over Israel

Tuesday 18 July 2006, 4:36 Makka Time, 1:36 GMT

After the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, the appeals for denouncing Israel have multiplied.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest US Muslim rights group, said: "Once again, America's image and interests worldwide are being harmed by one-sided support for Israeli actions.

"We're urging Muslims in America and other people of conscience to contact their elected officials to tell them that we have to have balanced foreign policy for the Middle East, one that is driven by American interests, not Israeli interests."

US must lobby

Zainab Al-Suwaij, the director of the American Islamic Congress, had an even more immediate goal, urging the US to actively lobby for an end to the current violence.

"The policy for the US should be stopping the violence, period, and starting to solve the problem through negotiations."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/590C011D-1B7F-46D1-BA7B-D39B148F0443.htm

[physioex]

13. I think they are going about it wrong.....

They need to form PAC lobbies and start giving money to politicians. This will start to bring the US to a more balanced middle east policy.....

[PsychoDad]

14. BINGO

Our representatives don't listen to their constituents, they listen to the money of lobbyists.

Peace.

[IndianaGreen]

20. That's why we don't have a rational policy towards Cuba

a country that has never harmed America or threatened Americans. The wealthy and powerful Cuban-American lobby has bought Congress to prevent Americans from traveling to Cuba, and to prevent children from reading books that portray Cuba in any positive fashion.

[megatherium]

42. self-delete

[PsychoDad]

15. But as an American Muslim...

I wouldn't put any money on the chances of a balanced ME approached plank in the Dem platform.

Peace.

[harun]

36. 0 % chance of that

The official policy of the U.S. involvement (Rep and Dem) in Israeli affairs is an international good cop vs. bad cop routine. Where Israel plays the bad cop that is going to kill everyone and U.S. the good cop tells everyone they better be good and cooperate or mr. bad cop is going to be really bad and there is nothing mr. good cop can do about it.

Mind you in the good cop vs. bad cop routine both parties are on the same side to manipulate and get what they want.

The Dem platform should be that they are for the creation of a balance of power in the Middle East. This way the Israelies would be forced to work on creating good relations with their neighbors, through political dialogue and negotiations.

I want no harm to come to either side, just that they can find a way to agree on borders and calm the situation down.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

52. I agree with you

Personally, I think we should create an escrow account with all of our Middle East foreign aid moneys and tell all concerned parties that none of them will get a dime of it until the violence is STOPPED.

Both sides (IMHO, of course) are acting in an uncivilized, childish manner, and no progress is going to be made as long as every country on earth is unilaterally supporting one side over the other. They need an incentive to stop, and, as far as I'm concerned, money is going to be the only thing to do the trick at this point.

[bennywhale]

32. I hope they used fake names, cos the FBI will no doubt

be locking them up very soon for such subversive thoughts.

Obviously terrorists, they even have the right coloured skin and the right kinda names. "If we can only find out they recycle their rubbish we'll have those terrorist, communist, green bastards in jail."

[JackNewtown]

22. Not surprising at all

What Israeli actions that aren't supported by the Palestinians do Muslim interest groups ever support?

[IndianaGreen]

24. You won't find many people supporting the wanton bombing of civilians

that had nothing to do with Hizbollah or Hamas's attacks on IDF patrols and on Israel's civilian population.

[harun]

37. The withdrawal from Gaza (n/t)

[JackNewtown]

39. Touche nm

[Vidar]

25. Can't imagine why.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Would the response have been much different with a President Kerry?

President Hillary? President Feingold? President Boxer?

[confludemocrat]

51. Come on, there would have been 8 cents worth of difference, if not a dimes

you might have heard a hypocritical afterthought-driven, "nuanced", conditional out of all real meaning-based call for a cease fire after the first 200 innocent civilians had been blown to bits by Israel

[plasticsundance]

41. Yeah ... USA ... USA ... USA!!!

You're winning the fucking hearts and minds all over the place! Good job! Why stop digging, when you feel so comfortable in the hole? :sarcasm:

[demwithoutaparty]

43. Funny,

I see nothing on CAIR"s site condeming the killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and the bombing of Israel by Hezbollah. Could it be that CAIR also has a one-sided agenda.

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=archive&theType=NR

[Binka]

47. Wow I Post And Such Deep Wisdom

:sarcasm:

[demwithoutaparty]

48. Thank you for the warm welcome.

:sarcasm:

[The Straight Story]

53. A valid point is still one no matter post count :)

There is a one sided agenda. Does not mean it is right or wrong, just helps when viewing things from a group what their base agenda is.

[confludemocrat]

50. There are 25,000 American citizens in Lebanon but GWB says bombs away

the words "cease fire" won't cross his lips, he endorses the attacks on Lebanon and tacitly condemns any of those American citizens to mortal danger without a second thought. This is even within his professed line of BS to protect Americans, not even talking here of his obligation to humanity. Why? Because they are not white anglos. What a racist, depraved killer.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.