Every since 9/11, I've been wondering why and what. Why did they do this? What did we ever do? I assumed that somehow, somewhere somebody in the media would address this issue beyond the oversimplified "They hate us for our freedom," which seems to have taken hold in America's subconscious. That's great - a bumper sticker answer to one of the most important questions of our lives, "Why did 3,000 people have to die?"
Our freedom must really bug the shit out of them.
Seriously, they must really be some uptight motherfuckers, considering they killed themselves over the few extra rights we enjoy. "Look at the infidels enjoying their freedom. You know, they really piss me off. Somebody strap a bomb on me, I'm going in to blow up some naked chicks. That way I'll get my 70 virgins in heaven."
But I digress. I'll explain after the leap of faith.
My problem is the fucking ridiculously oversimplified explanations politicians give about given issues. It's not just George Bush. It's not just Republicans. Democrats feast on sound bites, too. But, oversimplified bullshit is not my biggest problem. My biggest problem is that the horse molesters in the media let them get away with it. Apparently, bumper sticker speech makes great headlines. Just ask the media consultants who give advice to both media outlets and politicians. "We need a good war slogan and logo, people. How about `Showdown with Saddam?'" Thunderous applause ensues.
Now, I have a new question. Just how fucking stupid do they think we are? I'm sorry. Is spittle running down my chin? Did I just invest all my money in a used underwear store? What? Why can't I get a straight fucking answer from the people I'm paying? Oh, yeah. I'm not paying the media. Advertisers are. I wonder if there's a relationship between media consultants and advertisers? Hmmmm. That would explain why the only somewhat in-depth, although insulting, article I could find giving the other side's view was this article on Al Jazeera entitled, "Why do they hate us so?"
Why do they hate us so? That question was asked by many Americans after 11 September 2001. The query is based entirely on ignorance, which, by itself, is a result of a chronic American fault - a near total apathy towards history.
Okay, aside from the fact that questions, by their nature are based entirely out of ignorance, he raises a good point.
The vast majority of Americans are clueless regarding the past of faraway lands as well as their own. That is highly dangerous in so much as we share this planet with other ethnicities, and historical illiteracy breeds misunderstanding.
Oh, for fuck's sake. I'm starting to get a complex here. First our government and our media thinks we're idiots, now this douche bag chimes in. I'll give him credit. At least he's willing to explain a few things.
Subsequently, during the agony known as the Iraq war, it becomes easy to be fixed totally on the present - the present being defined as that era beginning 19 March 2003, to now - and that is folly.
Damn. He's getting' all multi-syllabic on us `n shit. For those of you who don't understand (okay, if I'm going to be treated like an idiot, then so are you), he's trying to say "let's take a look at the events that lead us here."
Crusades
After the Seljuk Turks took control of the eastern Mediterranean lands (now known as Palestine) and Mesopotamia (Iraq), Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade to gain control of the Holy Land in 1096.
"I can only pray for the future of our two cultures."
Gavin, US
More comments...The Western army created four colonies, including one in Jerusalem. Using the euphemism, crusaders, European armies continued their pious invasions of the Middle East (applying the modern term), the last major incursion, the Fourth Crusade, taking place in 1204, at which time the Crusaders plundered Constantinople (Istanbul).
The Seljuk Turks were followed by the Mongol empire (1219 to 1500), and the Mongols were replaced by the Ottoman Turks during the 1500s.
At the height of the Ottoman empire, 1566, their control over Arab lands stretched from Mesopotamia through the Holy Land into North Africa from Egypt to Tunisia.
The Ottoman empire maintained its grip on modern-day Iraq and Palestine until the end of the first world war, at which time those lands fell under British rule. Iraq achieved its "independence" in 1932.
Okay, he's trying to turn this into a Christian vs. Muslim thing here, but it's pretty good history to know. But, Jesus Christ, don't they ever move on? They've got memories like elephants.
Egypt and Suez
Meanwhile, the largest Arab nation in the world, Egypt, did not fare much better. As stated, she was conquered by the Turks as well. In 1798, Napoleonic France gained control of it, and the emperor's troops were tossed out by British and Turkish forces in 1801.
The vast majority of Americans are clueless regarding the past of faraway lands, as well
as their own. This was followed by a brief period of autonomy under Muhamad Ali, an Albanian. However, the fate of Egypt was sealed in 1869.
Built by the French, the Suez Canal was opened. In 1875, Great Britain took control of the canal, and, in a manner of speaking, control of that vital waterway remains in the hands of the West to this day.
In 1882, Britain occupied Egypt. Gamal Abd al-Nasser nationalised the canal in 1956, but a war that year involving France and Britain clearly illustrated that Egypt really does not control the Suez.
Today, for example, the canal and access to the Red Sea and Arabian Sea is largely in the hands of the American Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Fleets, as is the Gulf. There could well be some Arab resentment about that.
The fact remains that since the fall of the Arab empire in the 11 century,, Arabs have not been in control of their own destiny. Arabs living in Arabia, changed to Saudi Arabia in 1932 in honour of the ruling family in the kingdom, have been largely independent, using the generic meaning of the term, since the days of the Muslim empire.
Now that last statement assumes that Arabs in the kingdom (Saudi Arabia) can experience independence while the US has bases in Dhahran, Jedda, Riyadh and four other locations, with still other locations that are "classified". There could well be some Arab resentment about that.
Recalling that Egypt's fate was sealed in 1869, the fate of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations was sealed in the 1930s. Oil was discovered.
The Middle East possesses the world's largest easily accessible reserves of black gold, Saudi Arabia ranking first, Iraq second. Western oil companies moved in.
Arab lands were now doomed to dominance by the industrial West, which needed that oil for its cars, planes, ships, and factories. There could well be some Arab resentment about that.
There he goes calling us stupid again. But, he does make a good point being empires tend to fall.
Mother of all insults
The greatest ignominy, by far, perpetrated by the West upon the Arab people is the formation of the state of Israel.
Indeed, the creation of the Jewish state fomented Islamic "terrorism", as we know it today. Arab nationalists, frustrated by defeat in wars against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, turned to "terrorism" and every target in the West was open game - Munich Olympics in 1972, Achille Lauro in 1985, World Trade Centre in 1993 and, of course, 2001.
Actually, over the years, the target list has become a very long one. Many in the West respect the state of Israel, but that is not the point.
For Americans to fully appreciate the scope of this mother of all insults, please allow a ridiculous scenario.
Let us assume that the Arab League had the power to carve a nation out of the US, say in Montana, meaning no disrespect to the inhabitants of that great state, and populate it with our deadliest enemy - members of al-Qaida. Would that not create a bit of a stir on the part of Americans? There could well be some American resentment about that.
How did this happen? That story is equally sordid. In 1917, the British treasury was depleted by the war, and Britain was facing defeat.
Soooo, we can only understand ridiculous scenarios? Anyway, we kind of knew they were pissed about Isreal.
At least we agree on something. But, we agree on a whole lot more than that. Look at the following passage.
Role of religion
Once again, history becomes a casualty. Never in the history of mankind has democracy flourished at the point of a gun. Also, an absolute requirement for a democracy is education, a secular education, not a Bible-waving, Quran-waving education. Education slanted by religion breeds prejudice.
Religion belongs in the home, church or mosque, and the innermost thoughts of the individual.
Let's just say that both Christianity and Islam are two of the great religions of the world and get on with it - meaning governance.
Does more than 900 years of foreign domination, the lion's share of it by Western powers, justify atrocities? Emphatically no. There is no purpose served by killing 25 people and wounding 50 others at a funeral.
However, the Iraqi resistance fighter is a soldier, and soldiers are strong adherents to reality. One reality is that continued attacks on Iraqi policemen and national guard units only prolong the stay of the American occupation forces.
At some point, the soldier will come to the bargaining table, and I am clueless at to what will happen there.
However, centuries of Western domination are kind of hard to forget and that will remove any holier-than-thou attitude American negotiators may have.
Once a man's grievance is recognised, that can go a long way towards understanding.
Sooo, apparently, Sandy Shanks thinks we're retarded so we shouldn't be killed for what we've done. That's nice of him in some strange way. George Bush, on the other hand, has no problem with executing retarded people. That's not very nice.
All that aside, I'm glad I finally got the other side's view, no matter how skewed. It's a shame the our media couldn't have explored that at some point.