"Muslims hate our policies, not our freedom"

[Sojc]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html

'They hate our policies, not our freedom'

Quietly released Pentagon report contains major criticisms of administration.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Late on the Wednesday afternoon before the Thanksgiving holiday, the US Defense Department released a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration's efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'

The Pentagon released the study after The New York Times ran a story about the report in its Wednesday editions.

The Defense Science Board, reports Disinfopedia, is "a Federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense."

'The current Board is authorized to consist of thirty-two members plus seven ex officio members': the chairmen of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Policy, Ballistic Missile Defense Advisory Committee, and Defense Intelligence Agency Science and Technology Advisory Committee. 'Members, whose appointed terms range from one to four years, are selected on the basis of their preeminence in the fields of science, technology and its application to military operations, research, engineering, manufacturing and acquisition process.'

China's Xinhuanet reported that the board's report criticized the US for failing in its efforts to communicate its military and diplomatic actions to the world, and the Muslim world in particular, "but no public relations campaign can save America from flawed policies." The report also takes the administration to task for talking about Islamic extremism in a way that offends many Muslims.

In stark contrast to the cold war, the United States today is not seeking to contain a threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western Modernity – an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'War on Terrorism,' [the report states].

MSNBC notes that the report, in a comment that directly goes against statements made by President Bush and senior cabinet members, says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have united otherwise-divided Muslim extremists and given terrorists organizations like Al Qaeda a boost by "raising their stature."

In fact, Wired News reported the board as saying, the US has not only failed to separate "the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists," but American efforts may have "achieved the opposite of what they intended."

Al Jazeera reported Thursday that the board called for the creation of a strategic communication's "apparatus" within the executive branch and "an overhaul of public diplomacy, public affairs and information dissemination efforts by the Pentagon and State Department."

If we really want to see the Muslim world as a whole [the report states], and the Arabic-speaking world in particular, move more toward our understanding of moderation and tolerance, we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean that they must submit to the American way.

As columnist Thomas Freidman of The New York Times wrote Monday in an opinion piece, the lack of planning and a 'clear channel of communication to the Muslim world' means that the US is losing the PR war to people that "saw off the heads of other Muslims."

Wars are fought for political ends. Soldiers can only do so much. And the last mile in every war is about claiming the political fruits. The bad guys in Iraq can lose every mile on every road, but if they beat America on the last mile – because they are able to intimidate better than America is able to coordinate, protect, inform, invest and motivate – they will win and America will lose.

The New York Times reported last Wednesday that although the board's report does not constitute official government policy, it captures "the essential themes of a debate that is now roiling not just the Defense Department but the entire United States government."

Edited November 30, 2004 by Sojc

[Leonard]

Ah, Tom Regan! Good unbiased source...........

Even if the report is real (see 'Rathergate'), it is wrong. The Moslems hate us because we are not Moslems. They want to kill us because the Koran commands them to do so.

Any other reason they give are lies, for the Koran commands them to lie and decieve their enemies so they can get in close enough to put a knife to our throats.

[Sojc]

Ah, Tom Regan!

Edited November 30, 2004 by Sojc

[dgolvach]

The problem with much US policy is that it is is turning those moderate muslims into devout muslims.

Which policy and why?

Dan

[Sojc]

The problem with much US policy is that it is is turning those moderate muslims into devout muslims.

Which policy and why?

Dan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The main new policy would be the brash new form of pre-emptive war. Although Muslims dispise America's support for Israel, that has been the status quo for a long time.

Does it not seem immensely hypocritical that the US went into Iraq and is now in Iraq bragging about how it is spreading democracy when the US supports and is allied to authoritarian dictatorships such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states?

Edited November 30, 2004 by Sojc

[Steff]

Like I said they've been saying why they dislike the United States for more than 40 years, we just haven't been listening.

[OneAccord]

Does it not seem immensely hypocritical that the US went into Iraq and is now in Iraq bragging about how it is spreading democracy when the US supports and is allied to authoritarian dictatorships such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states?

You forgot to mention Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Argentina, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum

[Leonard]

Sorry Sojc: A 'moderate' Moslem is one who has just switched from full-auto so single-fire!

[dgolvach]

The main new policy would be the brash new form of pre-emptive war. Although Muslims dispise America's support for Israel, that has been the status quo for a long time.

Why shouldn't we support Israel?

Does it not seem immensely hypocritical that the US went into Iraq and is now in Iraq bragging about how it is spreading democracy when the US supports and is allied to authoritarian dictatorships such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states?

You say Muslims hate our problems but not our freedom. I think they(the ones who say they hate us) hate our freedom as well. Especially women's freedom. Since when have they ever themselves built a free nation ? To my knowledge, never. We cant help it if Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan don't want to have freedom. We just buy their oil(Saudis). Don't even fool yourself into thinking that if the Muslims who hate our policy were to overthrow the countries you mentioned and take control, there would be freedom. Muslims, especially the Islamonazi's that hate us will never opt for a free and open country. They cannot operate their wife beating, honor killing, head and hand chopping, Christian and Jew hating, terrorist and jihadist style false religion under conditions that were free.Islam is not about freedom. Infact they don't view God as a Father. They see him as a slave master. The best chance for freedom to take root there is what we are doing in Iraq. Bush never said it would be a cake walk to accomplish this. Perhaps impossible. But left to Muslims on their own? No way. Perhaps some of the non-radical Iraqis will get a taste of freedom and human nature will kick in and open the pandoras box. Maybe? Worth a try? I think so because allowing certain styles of goverment such as Saddam's or that of the clerics to grow and eventually have advanced missle technology combined with nukes or even nukes combined with Isalmonazi martyrs and American open borders, is not a good idea. We may even be to late. This is something we should have probably done when " Loverboy" was in office. The warning signs were there but ''Bubba" was kinda busy in the oval office with other activities. You know. Anyways, Hussain did have wmd and plenty of time to hide it during the months leading up to the nessesary invasion. He would not come clean and Bush was forced to take him at his word. Not a good idea. Though Hussain wasn't a radical in the Islamic false religion. He was a product of centuries of that type of mind set. The world it much to dangerous to allow that to fester. In Iraq or Iran. Im glad Pakistan's leader seems to be with us. Pray hard that he dosent get overthrown by the "peace loving" Islamists.

[Sojc]

The main new policy would be the brash new form of pre-emptive war. Although Muslims dispise America's support for Israel, that has been the status quo for a long time.

Why shouldn't we support Israel?

Does it not seem immensely hypocritical that the US went into Iraq and is now in Iraq bragging about how it is spreading democracy when the US supports and is allied to authoritarian dictatorships such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states?

You say Muslims hate our problems but not our freedom. I think they(the ones who say they hate us) hate our freedom as well. Especially women's freedom. Since when have they ever themselves built a free nation ? To my knowledge, never. We cant help it if Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan don't want to have freedom. We just buy their oil(Saudis). Don't even fool yourself into thinking that if the Muslims who hate our policy were to overthrow the countries you mentioned and take control, there would be freedom. Muslims, especially the Islamonazi's that hate us will never opt for a free and open country. They cannot operate their wife beating, honor killing, head and hand chopping, Christian and Jew hating, terrorist and jihadist style false religion under conditions that were free.Islam is not about freedom. Infact they don't view God as a Father. They see him as a slave master. The best chance for freedom to take root there is what we are doing in Iraq. Bush never said it would be a cake walk to accomplish this. Perhaps impossible. But left to Muslims on their own? No way. Perhaps some of the non-radical Iraqis will get a taste of freedom and human nature will kick in and open the pandoras box. Maybe? Worth a try? I think so because allowing certain styles of goverment such as Saddam's or that of the clerics to grow and eventually have advanced missle technology combined with nukes or even nukes combined with Isalmonazi martyrs and American open borders, is not a good idea. We may even be to late. This is something we should have probably done when " Loverboy" was in office. The warning signs were there but ''Bubba" was kinda busy in the oval office with other activities. You know. Anyways, Hussain did have wmd and plenty of time to hide it during the months leading up to the nessesary invasion. He would not come clean and Bush was forced to take him at his word. Not a good idea. Though Hussain wasn't a radical in the Islamic false religion. He was a product of centuries of that type of mind set. The world it much to dangerous to allow that to fester. In Iraq or Iran. Im glad Pakistan's leader seems to be with us. Pray hard that he dosent get overthrown by the "peace loving" Islamists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no problems with supporting Israel, I'm just looking at things from a muslim perspective.

I personally believe that those who still believe Iraq had full working stockpiles of WMDs are deceiving themselves because they don't want to admit or believe that they and who they trusted was wrong. However, we could debate the WMD issue and go nowhere. The issue is US hypocrisy. There are many more roque nations much more dangerous than Iraq even if they had WMDs. Just look and North Korea and Iran. And there many dictators in the world like Saddam. That makes America's starting of the Iraq war seem stupid in the eyes of much of the world.

The arab world is a mess and is already full of enough inner conflict. Muslims are not nosy and won't want to destroy america for a purely ideological reason. They see America's actions and meddling in the middle east as a threat to their sovreignty. The original reason Osama Bin Laden started a movement against the US was because of American military bases in Saudi Arabia (Osama does not like the Saudi royal family too).

Edited November 30, 2004 by Sojc