NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, I know many of you are probably thoroughly sick of all this by now so feel free to skip on past this thread. Sorry it's posted so late but I've been busy recently and so haven't had time to devote the attention to this post that it deserves.

OK, so here goes. I'm one of the meddling foreigners (as readers of the "view from the outside" thread already know). This is my attempt to convey to those who voted for Bush, and even those who didn't, who are angry about foreigners daring to comment on US politics why we do so.

First, straight off the bar, I will admit that disagree with a large part of Bush's domestic policies, however I accept that that is absolutely none of my business. I leave such discussions to the many intelligent, well-informed US citizens on both sides both on this forum and elsewhere.

Bush's foreign policy, however, is my concern. As a UK citizen I see my country being dragged into a war that is not supported by a significant majority of its citizens, the stated justifications for which are (in my opinion, I fully accept that there are different views and would never claim to have a monopoly on truth or wisdom in this case) highly dubious. I'm largely impotent to change the view of the UK government, however; there's no immediate election and even when there is one Blair will most likely win (given the fact that the main opposition party also supported the war). I would love to have been able to influence the US election, however the only means I would have been comfortable with would have been by calmly arguing my case. I realise that US citizens are by and large well acquainted with the arguments from both sides, and that by now most opinions are largely entrenched, and so I realise such arguments would be futile. It's a highly complex issue, hence the fact that intelligent, rational people can so widely differ in their conclusions.

So I was not, am not and would not tell US voters how to vote. There is, however, something that I feel as a widely travelled non-US citizen I can offer to the debate and that is how Bush is perceived overseas. I feel that perhaps some Americans fail to appreciate just how deep and widespread dislike of Bush is worldwide. I have a very large number of friends and acquantances from many different countries on every continent and only a tiny number have expressed positive sentiments about Bush. Apart from Israel and perhaps Russia in virtually every country the majority of the people have a negative impression (in varying degrees) of the current President. It's a ludicrous situation that statesmen such as Vladimir Putin (dictator-wannabe with appaling human-rights record) and Jacques Chirac (self-serving blowhard desperately clinging to power to avoid corruption charges) have a higher standing worldwide than a US President who suffered an atrocity on his own doorstep, but that's the way it is.

The reasons why are probably well enough known, and expressed better than I could in Zeppistan's original post on the "view from outside" thread, that I need not go over them. Maybe they're wrong-headed, maybe we just don't "get it". Maybe it's just our liberally-biased media (though even right-leaning papers in the UK, which are closer in ideology in many ways to the Republicans than Democrats, are largely anti-Bush) or self-serving governments (though clearly this isn't the case in members of the "coalition of the willing") leading us astray. Maybe it's just pig-headed anti-American sentiment (but note that Clinton and Bush snr never attracted remotely the same emotions). But they're there. And they mean that Bush has a lot of persuading to do wheras Kerry would have started from a clean slate.

Perhaps this doesn't really matter. Why should citizens of the richest, most powerful country in the world really care what a few million Frenchmen think? After all, the US has the power do what it wants, right? Well, too an extent. But even US power has limits. Already the US (and for that matter UK) military is stretched pretty thin, unless Iraq is sorted out soon the capacity of the US government to deal with other rogue states alone is seriosuly diminished. The fact is that though European nations may not even come close to the US in terms of hardware or logisitics the combined military manpower in the EU is larger than that of the US. Ground forces from the EU or other states in Iraq or elsewhere would greatly increase the ability of the US administration to project power elsewhere. But as long as resentment and suspicion of the motives of the current administration remain other countries will be reluctant to assist.

Furthermore, other governments will be less willing to immediately co-operate in intelligence terms. Even though, despite some arguments to the contrary, all western countries, and most other states too, abhor islamic fundamentalist terrorism the fact that the Bush administration failed to convincingly argue the link between Iraq and the war on terror, in the eyes of many in the rest of the world, has meant that other states are no longer convinced that intelligence will be solely used in the fight against Al-Qaeda. Finally, Guantanamo has ensured that deporting citizens to the US has become a very controversial action. All these factors at to hinder the effectiveness of the US to fight terrorism.

You can argue that these problems are most easily remedied by foreign governments, and you'd be right. Unfortunately, however, just as you would wish the US government to reflect the views of the American people so foreign democracies must reflect the views of their people. Even dictatorships must tread carefully less they risk a popular uprising. So somehow those sceptical non-Americans must be convinced. It's not up to their governments to do so, evidence from the countries in the coalition shows that in trying to do so they merely make themselves seem puppets. The media can't or won't. So it is up to the US administration to try to convince the rest of the world of the nobility of their motivations. They need to convince people made sceptical after Iraq that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are still public enemy number one and that it will not casually trample upon the rights of citizens of other states in it pursuit of them. Most of all it needs to convince that it is prepared to listen to and deal with criticism from outside its borders of its foreign policy, even if it does not agree with it. I sincerely hope Bush can do so, that the world can unite behind the US in what is, after all, a truly just cause as it did in Iraq EDIT: oops, pretty big mistake, meant Afghanistan. The actions of the last few years means he has a lot of work to do, however.

Finally, you may just say, why bother? You may ultimately reject my arguments why the US should pay attention to popular opinion elsewhere and continue to argue that we are irrelevant. That the US doesn't need to give a damn about what everyone else thinks, that we're weak, out of date, an irritant at most. If that's your view you're entitled to it. All I say to those who claim this is don't be surprised if some other countries don't go along with you. Don't launch into indignant rage, claiming that we owe you and renaming foodstuffs. Perhaps we do owe you. Perhaps we're being selfish (though I note that those who use the selfish argument are often the same ones who justify Bush on the basis of acting in the US's best interests). So what? We don't matter. We're irrelevant. We're the past. Just leave us to wallow.

can I toss this into the discussion?

America Under Attack

Our great country is under attack. This essay has the best explanation I have read for what we as a nation are going through right now. Please read this and pass this one on to all you know. Mike Meehan - Webmaster


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND
THE GREAT CALIPHATE
By
Larry Abraham


I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send them to your friends and relatives. The information is too critical to be overlooked in the madness of this election year.

Part I of this essay was written in January [2004] before the Democrat Party primaries settled anything and before the occupation of Iraq took a turn for the worse. However, it is now more obvious that what I wrote about the nature of the Third Great Jihad is all too true. The political picture has deteriorated in Europe and the U.S .to a great degree since then so Part II takes these developments into consideration. Again, I urge all of you to distribute this essay as far and wide as possible without any concern for copyright violation. Our fellow citizens need to know the true nature of what we all face. LHA

As we watch and listen to all the Democrat Party candidates running for the nomination of their party, it is tantamount to enduring the Chinese water torture. The blah, blah, blah goes on and nothing of value comes out except the pain of listening to the same nothingness over and over again. I won’t take the time or space to repeat what you have heard so many, mind numbing times over the past months but what you have not heard is crucial.

I must also fault President Bush and the administration spokesmen for not telling the American people what they really need to know about this “war”. If they don’t do that sometime between now and November it may cost them the election.

It Did Not Start on 9/11

The war we are now facing did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authorities in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the “ Third Great Jihad” and are doing so within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the Seventh century and their attempts to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence.

No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, than did Islam and the reasons for this growth are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad’s death in 632 AD. The Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire was based in Constantinople and trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were unbearable as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied from the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church. What Islam offered was the “carrot or the sword”.

If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn’t, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (old testament). Both were called “children of the book”, the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New testaments for Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading the “word” Islam grew like wild fire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the “first” great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they had firmly established the religion on the Iberian peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The “second great jihad” came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam’s most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in “the ways of the Prophet”. By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final and failed attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival know has Wahhabism which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites. What this sect calls for is the complete and total rejection of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and it finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afgani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the “third Jihad”.

Jimmy Carter sets the stage

The strategy for this “holy war” did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the plans for toppling the Shah of Iran back in the early 1970’s and culminated with his exile in 1979. With his plans and programs to “westernize” his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target.

Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his arm forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the “Great Caliphate”.

The Great Caliphate

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and finally what they call the “occupied territory” Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and what was attempted in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons.

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. 1. The U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. 2. Taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves, and 3. Using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations.


Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the facts that immediately following the 9/11 attack, their first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists. The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison.
Why Iraq?

The war on Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or his willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known, were serious indications of on-going collaboration, as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait.

What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, world-wide, to “Stop The War”. Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little know politician as the thrust point; Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the “Dean Phenomenon”.

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the “Hate Bush” liberals, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e. Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.

Should George W. Bush be defeated in November and a new administration come to power we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I believe that this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors, V.I. Lenin admonished…”two steps forward, one step back”.

A couple of additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church and Carter’s CIA Director, Admiral Stansfield Turner. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. Jimmy Carter is the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the “advice and counsel” of this despicable little hypocrite who now prances around with his Nobel Prize, while attacking President Bush with almost as much venom as his fellow Nobel Laureate, Yassir Arafat.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French.


Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Amid Ben Bella, the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totally twenty percent of the population.
We are in the battle of our lives which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of “knowing our enemy” the results will be catastrophic.

PART II (May 1, 2004)

Since writing the above, we have witnessed some frightening evidence in support of our hypothesis both internally and in other parts of the world.

The al Qaeda bombing in Madrid has emboldened our enemy into believing it can use terror as an instrument for democratic regime change. Based on what happened there, they may be right.

Kerry and bin Laden on the same page

John Kerry and other leaders of his party constantly refer to the United States as “acting unilaterally.” They give no credit whatsoever to countries like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Australia or even tiny Honduras for putting their limited armed forces in harm’s way to support the U.S. led coalition in Iraq. It is little wonder that some are considering doing what Spain has done—pulling out. The leaders in these countries have spent considerable political capital in this effort, and have little to show for it as it relates to fostering good will with the American public. Couple that fact with Osama bin Ladin’s latest offer of withholding attacks on those who “quit” the coalition and you have all the elements for a Democrat party fostered “self-fulfilling prophecy” where the U.S. will be totally alone in the pacification of Iraq. John Kerry and the Bush critics persist in the “lie” of the U.S. going it “alone” in Iraq but Osama bin Laden knows differently and will use the Kerry rhetoric to help isolate the U.S. The terrorists now see themselves as political “king-makers”. They may be right.

Another aspect of the “anti-Bush” political axis is how both his political enemies and the main stream media take ghoulish delight in “the body count,” just as they did in the later days of Vietnam. Oh sure, they pay incidental homage to the memory of the young Americans who gave their lives in the greatest threat this country has ever faced, but they do so with all the sincerity of Madonna making a vow of chastity. As the body bags grow in number, they believe, so grows their political prospects. They may be right.

If the Bush administration is further weakened in the months leading up to the November elections, we will witness a heightened al Qaeda offensive in all parts of the world, including our own country, and especially in Iraq and nations surrounding it ,i.e., Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Events within the past few days in Jordan not only make this argument but also point to the possibility of “what happened to the WMDs.”
Iran and Syria are daily growing more overt and bold in their support of insurgents within Iraq, believing that Bush has been so hurt by internal politics that he is powerless to act against them in any meaningful way. They may be right.

The Leftwing initiative, Political Correctness and Our Will to Win

Within our own country we are witnessing and almost insane application of “political correctness.” As the barbarism of radical Islam grows more apparent in the streets of the Middle East from Gaza to Basra, we see a cultural suicide taking place within our own schools and communities.

Our children are being taught from the Koran, our professors are preaching intifadah in their class rooms, and Muslim “call to prayer” loud speakers are blaring out from city halls. The more precarious our very existence becomes, the more our liberal brethren embrace their enemies. It is a Stockholm Syndrome which can only lead to the recruitment of young Muslims who will be willing to duplicate in the West what their co-religionists are doing in the streets of Israel and the market places of Baghdad. The liberal P.C. crowd say nothing about the silence of the Muslim religious leadership as it relates to the carnage of innocents but couldn’t speak out fast enough against the inspiration supplied to tens of millions of Christians by Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. They were put off by the movie’s “violence” and its alleged “fostering of anti-Semitism”. Movies must represent their “reality” as the real thing moves them not at all. Among liberal Jews in America, hatred of George W. Bush is only surpassed by their contempt for Ariel Sharon…Let them explain it, I am at a total loss to do so. Maybe they just miss seeing Bill Clinton smooching Yassir Arafat in the White House Rose Garden.

The “Reverend” Jesse Jackson is now calling the U.S. “guilty of crimes against humanity” as he sets out to mobilize the non-Islamic Left. None of the Democrat leadership says a word in opposition to Jackson’s treason or Hillary’s attacks on the President and U.S. policy in an Arabic newspaper, while in London. You can bet that al Jezeera didn’t miss a beat in their reporting of both events.

The campaign takes its toll

The campaign is seriously hurting Mr. Bush’s leadership role in the War on Terror. While ducking every new book critical of his initiative or trying to counter the partisan nitpicking of the 9/11 Commission, he has persisted in the misbegotten insistence of “installing democracy” in Iraq. Our purpose for being in that beleaguered country should be restricted to one purpose and one purpose only, to stop the expansion of The Third Jihad and provide a base for doing same in the neighboring areas. This can be done by sealing the borders, attacking anything that moves in violation of same and by making it clear to Syria and Iran that any participation on their part will be considered an “act of war”. Let the country be governed by the local tribes, Shiite in the south, Sunni in the central and Kurds in the north with a U.S. pro consul overseeing the military. Oil revenues could be spilt by population allocation. How about installing a Republic…it worked pretty well here with diverse populations.

The very idea that we should spend our sons and daughters blood or our tax dollars on trying to building a “democracy” in the region which has neither a history nor a desire for such, is sheer nonsense. The very essence of Islamic teaching speaks directly against this principle. Continuing on the current path can only result in fostering greater hatred for the “Great Satan”. Force is the only thing which is respected in that part of the world and this force need not be tied to “reform”. I suggest Mr. Rumsfled acquaint himself with a copy of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars and Sun Tsu’s Art of War. All the tactics and strategies necessary to subdue the Iraqi insurgents can be found in those two military gems.

Please not the UN

Bringing the U.N. to the party will only compound the problem without adding any accountability. The U.N. has been accused of many things over the years, but being a “democratic” institution has never been one of them. Just the latest scandal of the “Oil for Food” program should provide any thinking person with all the evidence they need to keep the U.N. at bay. But this doesn’t seem to bother the likes of the John Kerry’s of the world who prattle on as if the scam doesn’t even exist.

Just one example will make my case; the UN mandate in Israel, which has been in place since 1948. One more salient point needs to be made on this subject. There is no such thing as “The International Community.” There are only individual countries, each with its own agenda which is always self serving. The myth of a higher level of “moral authority” coming out of the UN as been one of the greater lies of the past half century, but it is a lie which persists in spite of a bloody record of hypocrisy, graft, genocide and “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” I have a suggestion for the 9/11 Commission:.Why don’t they look into what the UN was doing before the attack on the World Trade Center? If they do, they will find that exactly one week before, the UN was holding a Conference on Racism in Durbin, South Africa where the delegates voted overwhelmingly to condemn Israel, as “racist and terrorist.” The U.S., Canadian and Israeli delegates walked out in disgust. Nary a word was uttered about Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, or the Taliban, to say nothing of what was happening in Rwanda while they crunched caviar on toast and washed it down with vintage Champagne. Genocide does not qualify as “racism” according to the UN “morality.” Neither we nor the world needs the UN to muck up what is already a very delicate situation. If given proper leadership every Middle Eastern country named above will throw in with the Coalition, for if they don’t they will be the next targets of the Third Great Jihad and the Great Caliphate. Pakistan is already showing the leadership which others will follow. What do you think moved Kadahaffi to cozy up to the U.S. and Great Britain? He fears the Jihadist more than he hates us.

Evil Does Exist

Our current crises, in meeting the threat of the Third Jihad, is one more example of how most Americans simply refuse to believe there is evil in this world and are willing to grant moral equivalence on any human action. Unless the crime is personalized such as in the case of Lacy Peterson, we lose interest quickly and become bored or at least not involved.

To try and understand what we are facing, look into the eyes of your son or grandson and try to fathom a mind which would take pride in strapping a bomb to his body and sending him out to kill himself and countless innocent people. Or in the case of your daughter or grand daughter, try to imagine a religion which commands you to mutilate her vagina to destroy her sex drive or demands you to stone her to death if she has sexual relations with a man other than of your choosing.

If you can comprehend these facts both intellectually and emotionally, then you will start to understand what we are facing in the months and years ahead, both at home and abroad.

The radicals of Islam will stop at nothing to destroy us and all we stand for. They see this war as their “entry to paradise” and a release from the miserable existence they have built for themselves within the confines of an evil and perverse religion. The Jihadist are NOT like us, nor most of their fellow Muslims. But, like terrorists everywhere they have silenced any criticisms from fellow Muslims through threat and intimidation and have, with the help of the ‘useful idiots” in the West, “created the appearance of popular support”.

If we are incapable of understanding these realities and acting accordingly, within the life time of everyone who reads these words, we will see our cherished way of life cease to exist and chaos become our lot. The Clash of Civilizations is now reaching out and touching all of us. May God grant us the wisdom and the courage to meet the challenge.

I respectfully dedicate the above to the memory of Pat Tillman and his 872 comrades who by their courage and willing sacrifice set an example for every American. May we be worthy of their “greatest love…”

Larry Abraham

http://www.catsprn.com/under_attack.htm

can I toss this into the discussion?

http://www.catsprn.com/under_attack.htm

Thank you so much for providing this. I admit I had only a loose understanding of the radical Muslim agenda, but this provided the history and motives that give a comprehensive view of the nature of the threat we face. Again, excellent source, thank you.

I will admit, i'm still verifing it. but as I once said. I've heard that G W Bush did study the Muslim Religion and read their text... It kinda made sense why he pushed the Iraq war so quickly.

One thing I find interesting is that US can invade another country because of their domestic policy (no I DON'T consider the Iraq war bad) and we europeans can't even discuss theirs...

One thing I find interesting is that US can invade another country because of their domestic policy (no I DON'T consider the Iraq war bad) and we europeans can't even discuss theirs... :confused: Seriously? You cannot discuss your Domestic Policy Here or do you mean in General. I'll admit, I would like to read such threads, won't beable to contribute but I would find interesting.

Good post JuNii, but I'm abit curious how REAL is that statement. Some Could be propoganda. Anyhooo....

I'm also a foreigner to America. I'm from Malaysia (A nation struggling with moderate and fundemental islam), and I clearly like reading about America's current affairs.

However I support Bush and his war on terror (one of the few), although his war in Iraq is clearly a big blunder of information, but I still respect his decision to stick with the country and help them out of their misery, rather than turn tail and leaving. Like Blair has said "I am saying sorry, for the misinformation concerning Iraq's WMD's, however I have no regret on removing Saddam Hussein".

If you ask me, Bush'es war on terror is very contreversial, because it's based on each individual and how you view the threat of terrorism. People claim about Bush using scare tactics (which is clearly rubbish) during his elections. But I think what he is claiming is an <b>understatement</B> of what its becoming.

Our current problem of terrorism lies with Islamic education. Governments like mine, has managed to control this threat (and is still fighting with it) with a centralised Islamic teaching. About the 'meaning of Jihad', shutting down and capturing of Ulama's ( by our Internal Security Act, which was once criticised but later commended by Bush) that practice wrong teachings that America is evil, Islam is the ONLY religion bla bla bla, and controlling the media. (we have lots of those advertistments showing 'I'm a American Muslim living in America, America is not against Islam' and other ad's, which I find them funny at times. :D Clearly it's against alot of what freedoms Americans hold dear (worse than your patriot act), but it's what that is required in this era of terrorism.

Thats why I cringe at sometimes reading threads where they say that their Anarchist, and people could just talk things out. :D clearly some lefty in some far away land.

It's a very grave thing, especially in countries like Southern Thailand, Indonesia (my two nearest neighbours), Iraq, and Middle East, where islamic schools are teaching their childrens since young that 'America is the Great Satan' and stuff like that. To them, you Americans aren't even human. Your worse than animals, you are infidels. Some like Hamas goes far enough to say that Blowing yourself up and killing Jews, you would go to heaven and have 49(?) virgins (Somewhere that number, they keep on changing). Especially now with the war on terror, you always hear Al-Jazeera keep on saying that 'It's a Holy War, War between Christians and Islam', and you guys wonder why they keep on ranting about it. It's because they really believe that is what happening.

And from the most current elections of Bush, I am neither against it or for it. Because to my perspective, either president would do nearly the same in this contreversial era of global terrorism. Just that Kerry would have more multilateral ties, but to me, UN is absolutely rubbish, because it takes forever for them to make a decisive decision, and US has no say because they are just one vote.

True, which is why I do admit I am still verifying it. I present this because there are others who will also go over this with a fine tooth comb and I hope they can also provide evidence and not just "this is stupid."

Oh and New Obbhlia, if I understand your comment, It's not that you cannot discuss your domestic policy, It's just that most of the time, Brits (or people who say they're Brits) are doing nothing but being Judgmental towards the US. I've heard that there is a Strike going on in London? Is this true? if so, why not Discuss it. I think you'll find that there are people who will discuss things rationally without the Judgement.

:confused: Seriously? You cannot discuss your Domestic Policy Here or do you mean in General. I'll admit, I would like to read such threads, won't beable to contribute but I would find interesting.
Both, I have seen many threads in General where people tell others to back off from criticising foreign domestic policies as it doesn't affect them, and every time "euroweenies" mention the 30 million people living under international classed poverty in US they sure get attention (ok, they get, but it isn't of the good kind)!

Both, I have seen many threads in General where people tell others to back off from criticising foreign domestic policies as it doesn't affect them, and every time "euroweenies" mention the 30 million people living under international classed poverty in US they sure get attention (ok, they get, but it isn't of the good kind)!Ahh, but does the 30 million people in the US part of Europes Domestic Policy? Are you sending aid for them? It does seem like you're judging us, and when you harp on our elections, it sounds like you're trying to influence US Internal Policy. Should any of Europe's nation be holding an election, I'm sure they wouldn't want US telling them who to vote for. Discussing it and Judging it are two different things.

Oh and New Obbhlia, if I understand your comment, It's not that you cannot discuss your domestic policy, It's just that most of the time, Brits (or people who say they're Brits) are doing nothing but being Judgmental towards the US. I've heard that there is a Strike going on in London? Is this true? if so, why not Discuss it. I think you'll find that there are people who will discuss things rationally without the Judgement.
I wasn't really intending that, but it is a good point, we complain about christians being against homosexual marriage on moral grounds, yet we condemn US policies, even if it doesn't affect us in any other ways than moral (note, I know that people on both sides are reasonable, I just find the republican attitude to foreign "meddling" a bit strange).

I wasn't really intending that, but it is a good point, we complain about christians being against homosexual marriage on moral grounds, yet we condemn US policies, even if it doesn't affect us in any other ways than moral (note, I know that people on both sides are reasonable, I just find the republican attitude to foreign "meddling" a bit strange).Not just Republicans... but Democrates as well... hell, all of the US, I'll admit.

Hey, I'm British & there's nothing I enjoy more than having a nice political discussion with a foreigner. Regardless of nationality. As long as they don't make moronic and ill-informed opinions like "Blair is a great PM." or "Bush is an evil man" then I am cool with that.

Hey, I'm British there's nothing I enjoy more than having a nice political discussion with a foreigner. Regardless of nationality. As long as they don't make moronic and ill-informed opinions like "Blair is a great PM." or "Bush is an evil man" then I am cool with that.Great... Unfortunately you have the "US you ruined the election... you're so stupid to re-elect Bush"ites out there that it make most discussions turn into an insult-fest. I for one would love to know how the British Government works. I've leard alot about the Royal Family on these boards already.

So, read the post JuNii it's an, erm, interesting theory. One quick question though, what on Earth did it have to do with my original post?

Hey, nice biased post. Way to ignore all the atrocities in the past that have been committed in the name of Christianity. Spanish Inquisition anyone? Destruction of the Aztecs?

The bible is just as appaling as the koran. Certain interpretations of the bible can lead to justification of mass murder. After all, the old testament god did destroy entire civilisations because they were "evil". In the same way, certain interpretations of the koran can lead to justification of mass murder, as has already been argued here.

The sooner the world realises that wars justified by religious texts (that are by their very nature dogmatic and therefore nearly impossible to argue against from a neutral, rational standpoint) are wrong, the better.

Taking out religion? Never going to happen in a million years. Plus thats not a solution either.

Great... Unfortunately you have the "US you ruined the election... you're so stupid to re-elect Bush"ites out there that it make most discussions turn into an insult-fest. I for one would love to know how the British Government works. I've leard alot about the Royal Family on these boards already.

Agreed.

Actually, I must say that with the exception of the modern ages, never the territory of Portugal had so much religious freedom when we had the Arab Seljucides running the land (from 700 to 1254). Communities of Christians, Jews and Muslims co-existed in peace in harmony, and our history as a great collective memory of their presence.

PS: I read that text, it is very flawed o.o

Isn't Spanish derived partially from Arabic as well as Latin?

Also, the Moors and the Ottomans were the most tolerant people in the Middle Ages. And guess what? They were Muslim. Muslim people are just as capable of tolerance as other civilisations. There are flaws in Islamic culture and society, of course, but just like there are in all cultures.

So, read the post JuNii it's an, erm, interesting theory. One quick question though, what on Earth did it have to do with my original post?Some of the problems is that People perceive what the US is doing in Iraq as selfish. "Bush wants to control the Oil" or "Saddam made Bush Sr. look like a fool" ect. Others just want to know what was Bush's reason for going into Iraq. I've been hearing that Bush studied the Islamic faith when he was elected as well as other 'whispers.' I posted this as one possible explination as to why. I believe alot of the "Anti-US" sentiment is due to not knowing why. Before 9/11, Anti-US sentiment was more background noise with a few punctuated bombs on US military targets/embassies. After 9/11, the world changed, and few people wonder Why. Believe it or not, The Modern US rarely acted without support of the UN. except for Iraq... I thought this would be one possible explination... sorry... if you want, I can/will delete it.