Mensa
Non Compos Mentis
- Joined
- May 25, 2000
- Posts
- 4,107
I had a disturbing conversation with a man the other day. He was an Arab, or perhaps I should say he was of Arab extraction because he was born in North America and was an editor of an Arab language newspaper.
He informed me that the predominant view in the Arab community was that the protestations that this was a war against terrorism and not against Islam were not wholly believed. He says that the community is willing to suspend disbelief for now but are waiting for confirmation.
I asked him what he meant by that? He said that it was strange that Usama bin Laden is now enemy number one, and Afghanistan is being bombed. Yesterday it was another Moslem nation, Iraq, and Saddam Hussein who was the main villain for America. The day before, it was Iran and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Before the Ayatollah, it was the Moslem nation of Libya and Qadaffi. Before Qadaffi it was Arafat and the Palestinians. Before Arafat it was Nasser and Egypt. He remarked how it was interesting that India and Pakistan both developed nuclear capabilities, yet it was the Moslem state of Pakistan that was sanctioned. That the world knows that Israel has a nuclear capability and no action was taken or even threatened.
I then asked him what he would consider proof of the claim that it truly was a war against terror and not against Islam? He laughed and said when the U.S. goes back to fighting the Colombian drug lords. Then he became serious and said that if President Bush was serious about helping to establish a viable Palestinian homeland, they might be less skeptical. He claims that the U.S. only seems to back Moslem regimes that serve America's purpose rather than the best interests of the people of those countries. Many Arab governments are holding onto power by using American-supplied weapons and American-trained troops to supress their own people. Without American backing the political power situation throughout the Middle-east would change radically.
I asked him if this wasn't just a case of political reality? The U.S. backs these regimes because of America's strategic needs not because of any admiration for them. Better a Devil you know than one you don't? He agreed that while this was probably true, it served to alienate many and cast the U.S. of A. in a very bad light. People don't tend to think in geo-political terms, they only know that they have unpopular overlords and that they stay in power because the Americans back them.
What I found disturbing was that I didn't know how to respond exactly. Had it been an ill-informed diatribe, I could have countered with a torrent of facts but what he said was basically true. It left me in despair that such a wrong impression could seem so right. That the anti-American zealots could muster such convincing arguments. I found the whole thing unsettling!
He informed me that the predominant view in the Arab community was that the protestations that this was a war against terrorism and not against Islam were not wholly believed. He says that the community is willing to suspend disbelief for now but are waiting for confirmation.
I asked him what he meant by that? He said that it was strange that Usama bin Laden is now enemy number one, and Afghanistan is being bombed. Yesterday it was another Moslem nation, Iraq, and Saddam Hussein who was the main villain for America. The day before, it was Iran and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Before the Ayatollah, it was the Moslem nation of Libya and Qadaffi. Before Qadaffi it was Arafat and the Palestinians. Before Arafat it was Nasser and Egypt. He remarked how it was interesting that India and Pakistan both developed nuclear capabilities, yet it was the Moslem state of Pakistan that was sanctioned. That the world knows that Israel has a nuclear capability and no action was taken or even threatened.
I then asked him what he would consider proof of the claim that it truly was a war against terror and not against Islam? He laughed and said when the U.S. goes back to fighting the Colombian drug lords. Then he became serious and said that if President Bush was serious about helping to establish a viable Palestinian homeland, they might be less skeptical. He claims that the U.S. only seems to back Moslem regimes that serve America's purpose rather than the best interests of the people of those countries. Many Arab governments are holding onto power by using American-supplied weapons and American-trained troops to supress their own people. Without American backing the political power situation throughout the Middle-east would change radically.
I asked him if this wasn't just a case of political reality? The U.S. backs these regimes because of America's strategic needs not because of any admiration for them. Better a Devil you know than one you don't? He agreed that while this was probably true, it served to alienate many and cast the U.S. of A. in a very bad light. People don't tend to think in geo-political terms, they only know that they have unpopular overlords and that they stay in power because the Americans back them.
What I found disturbing was that I didn't know how to respond exactly. Had it been an ill-informed diatribe, I could have countered with a torrent of facts but what he said was basically true. It left me in despair that such a wrong impression could seem so right. That the anti-American zealots could muster such convincing arguments. I found the whole thing unsettling!
