Why do they hate us?

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
The United States and Middle East:
Why Do "They" Hate Us?
(revised, 12 Dec. 2001)
By Stephen R. Shalom

The list below presents some specific incidents of U.S. policy in the Middle East. The list minimizes the grievances against the United States in the region because it excludes more generalized long‑standing policies, such as U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes (arming Saudi Arabia, training the secret police in Iran under the Shah, providing arms and aid to Turkey as it ruthlessly attacked Kurdish villages, etc.). The list also excludes many actions of Israel in which the United States is indirectly implicated because of its military, diplomatic, and economic backing for Israel.

Whether any of these grievances actually motivated those who organized the horrific and utterly unjustified attacks of September 11 is unknown. But the grievances surely helped to create the environment which breeds anti-American terrorism.


1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.

1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.1

1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter‑century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.

1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region.

1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability".

early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.2

1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.3

1967‑: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.

1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.

1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.

1973‑75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."4

1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.5

1978‑79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.6

1979‑88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979.7 Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.

1980‑88: Iran‑Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly‑aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.8

1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon,9 killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self‑defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.

1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.

1984: U.S.‑backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.11

1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security Council resolution condemning Israeli repression.

1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.

1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and repression in Lebanon.

1990‑91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted.12 To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post‑war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.13

1991‑: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the price is worth it."14

1991-: U.S. forces permanently based in Saudi Arabia.

1993‑: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self‑defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.15

1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.

1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. Evidence for the chemical warfare charge widely disputed.16

2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
How can there be any doubt that these grievances motivated, or helped motivate those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11? There is no doubt that the U.S. did these things. Did the U.S. expect the Arab world's undying love in return??
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
It's a pretty telling list. Also speaks volumes of the ineffectiveness of permanent Security council member nations.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Ooooops Juan - you forgot the link
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Oh didn't you know? It's all their fault!

So sez certain pundits here ...

No one has said it was all their fault, but you can't keep poking a hornet's nest and not expect to be stung.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Wow - I had an interesting experience at Z-Net

http://blog.zmag.org/node/2831

They were discussing Ted Kazynski and his mental status after a tiring blog some hack produced - it's a virtual home for moonbats.....

Thanks for the interesting ahem points therein....ahem
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Wow - I had an interesting experience at Z-Net

http://blog.zmag.org/node/2831

They were discussing Ted Kazynski and his mental status after a tiring blog some hack produced - it's a virtual home for moonbats.....

Thanks for the interesting ahem points therein....ahem

I presented a number of statements. If you think the statements are wrong, please show where they are wrong.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
LOL - you jest Juan !

I wouldn't go near your posts with a ten foot pole. I thought you were a moderator here. Ratchet back man.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
LOL - you jest Juan !

I wouldn't go near your posts with a ten foot pole. I thought you were a moderator here. Ratchet back man.

How convenient, pity it doesn't apply to your sarcastic jibes. Cheers...
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
No, no, these are all pretty much historical facts that #Juan has put on the table, solid evidence actually.

Suprised he hasnt mentioned the link between the Ba'ath party, the Grand Mufti and the nazi's actually.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
No, no, these are all pretty much historical facts that #Juan has put on the table, solid evidence actually.

Suprised he hasnt mentioned the link between the Ba'ath party, the Grand Mufti and the nazi's actually.

Not "solid evidence" but a place to start. All of the statements have a bit, or a lot of truth in them. Was the invasion of Iraq started on 100 percent truth?
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
They hate us because they cannot compete against the West as an outcome of their failed culture. Because morally, intellectually and cognitively they walk on crutches.

No, that's way too simplistic and dismissive, and I don't believe it's true either, in any sense. I don't think "they" hate us at all, except for a relatively few extremists. I think most of them probably just feel sorry for us. What they really think is that we're fundamentally in error because we haven't accepted the most recent revelation from god (to Mohammed) about the way things ought to be, so we are doomed and their victory is ultimately inevitable, because they have the truth of things and we don't, and god's on their side.

There can be no clearer example of what's wrong with religious belief.
 

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
How can there be any doubt that these grievances motivated, or helped motivate those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11? There is no doubt that the U.S. did these things. Did the U.S. expect the Arab world's undying love in return??

Americans tend to be one-sided in their worldview. When they send troops somewhere, they always advertise it as being for some noble cause, usually freedom? Their propaganda paints them as liberators and saviours. So entrenched are they in their own myth that I truly think they do not understand why so many people/nations detest them. In justifying their own terrorist atrocities around the world, they are beyond understanding as to why anyone would visit the same evil back upon them. I heard it commented upon once, in a local news story after 9/11, that the surprise should not have been that this event happened, but that it took so long for someone to retaliate against them in their own country.
 

thomaska

Council Member
May 24, 2006
1,509
37
48
Great Satan
Some of the points are valid.

Some less so.

Its kind of like people saying they hate the US for intervening in Somalia and Bosnia then saying they hate America because they didn't intervene in Rwanda and Sudan.

Yep, we can't win for losing. S'why i am begining to think we should go back to the isolationsim, cut off aid to all the ingrates around the globe and mind our own business, like so many on these boards suggest.

Let the world fend for itself I say..and make parking lots out of the countries or organizations that screw with us once we are doing our best to mind our own affairs.

( from here on down I'm not responding to Toro , just most of the membership in general)

Isn't that what some of you want? For the U.S. to just mind our own business? What if we did? Would you shut the f up? Or would you just cry about us not helping? I really want to know, because, truth be told, you can't have it both ways. Like it or not, Americans are the way they are, and we will never succomb to the "kum baya" world mentality. You can poke fun at our nationalism or patriotism, but it is who we are. So, you can either deal with it..or try to beat us into submission, but if you choose the latter, stupidly like many have tried, even your most staunch moonbat allies in the U.S. would turn on you.

Don't mistake the divisions in our politics, (left and right) as being weakness. It is one of our greatestest strengths. For example..Gopher and I will never agree on anything on this forum. But because he's an American, I'd dive on a grenade to save his life in a heartbeat, no hesistation. So, yeah..the koranimals don't have a monopoly on crazy. We all have a little of it in us.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Don't mistake the divisions in our politics, (left and right) as being weakness. It is one of our greatestest strengths. For example..Gopher and I will never agree on anything on this forum. But because he's an American, I'd dive on a grenade to save his life in a heartbeat, no hesistation. So, yeah..the koranimals don't have a monopoly on crazy. We all have a little of it in us.


One big BRAVO to you.

I suggest that you log on to the John Birch Society web site in order to see why the USA should NOT become involved in foreign affairs. A great many people believe that this viewpoint is, somehow, a "liberal" position. Quite the contrary, it is an Americanist viewpoint. Note that I do not use "liberal" or "conservative".

What is an Americanist foreign affairs viewpoint? Briefly, it means adhering to the views held and taught by George Washington and by those who cherish them: Unless and until a compelling American interest is thoroughly demonstrated in a given situation, the USA must NOT intervene in that situation. Compelling interests included fear of imminent threat, a record of attacks upon American vessels or personnel such as piracy, theft of American property, and failure to respond to diplomatic efforts. Bush failed to demonstrate any such conditions when he marched off to war and repeatedly lied in order to justify himself. Moreover, a true Americanist viewpoint demands consistency in adherence to legal precedence. We Americans created the Nuremburg Doctrine and we must continue to apply it when warranted. And it definitely warrants application to Bush and his crimes today.

This has been pointed out condemned by the JBS and by conservatives as well as liberals. Therefore, my condemnation of Bush's criminal war cannot be said to be an example of either viewpoint. If it needs to be categorized at all, call it Americanism.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Ummmm Gopher?

What Thomaska said? I just couldn't promise that I'd stop a grenade for ya - but I'd hug ya because you
are part of the big old place I am waiting to join....

Your posts make my hair hurt reading - but that is part of learning - to figure out where I stand in matters of the nation. If we all agreed on things we'd spend our days sleeping round the clock being bored.

I guess nobody would understand it - but it works... this all for one stuff. At least for me it does. Curio