Proposal: "They" Hate Us for: a)Our Freedoms b)Our Policies

[hypewaders]

The following merits our attention here because it keeps recurring, and is central to the "War on Terrorism" conundrum. Because I would like for this important issue to be examined more rigorously, I challenge Mr. Spock, or anyone willing to sincerely take up the "For Our Freedoms" side to a reasoned and reasonable contest of ideas in this forum.

Because I consider this debate more important than any personalities involved, I request consideration of the following terms: That each participant be empowered to unconditionally hand over their side of the argument to a single designated member for continuation of the debate whenever available time or inspiration reaches a significant personal deficit.

For introduction, here is the most recent conversation that reminded me of this recurring topic (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1718632&posted=1#post1718632):

Challenger78: "And for each you kill, you create 10 more.
People, don't you see?"

Mr. Spock: "see what? that because they are determined we should give up?"

Challenger78: "It is not because they hate you for who you are, they hate you for what you do."

Mr Spock: "they hate you for being born, and living in the western world which they consider the emphasis of evil on earth."


I would like to offer the following link as background reference, and I will read and consider any preliminary material comparable in size and scope that supports the opposing view:

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf)

[hypewaders]

For your convenience, I would like to direct interested persons to Page 40 of the above reference, where there is a close description of where I would like to begin my argument:

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, 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. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.

• Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic — namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is — for Americans —really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves.

[angrybellsprout]

Bah, what an utter load of bullshit.

If you'd like additional support for the fact that the past ~100 years of western forgien policies is the reason why they hate us, then I'd be glad to help.

Not to mention brilliant men such as Pat Buchanan and Dr. Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7aFXRAW7mg

[hypewaders]

Thanks ABS, for your offer of support, and for the clip you linked, which is a great intro.

[James R]

Moderator note: Please remember that Proposal threads should not be used for debating, but for agreeing to the terms of conduct of the debate.

[Challenger78]

It should be a team debate, perhaps hyperwaders and SAM vs Spock and otheadp ? or whoever.
What about Sandy vs SAM ? Clash of the titans... (wait, we've seen that one haven't we ?)

[Carcano]

SAM vs Spock Hahaha...that would be over pretty quick!

[Challenger78]

I don't think that anyone is going to take the opposite side. people never do. James, I suggest you delete this forum..

[hypewaders]

Let's not underestimate the Freedom Friars. Surely they believe that what they espouse is worth defending in a fair debate. I'm holding out hope that someone will have the conviction to step up. Even Spock may summon the courage. He, Otheadp, GeoffP, Buffy, and others have more than enough brains to be worthy opponents of myself or other Policy Pundits.

All they seem to lack right now is courage. Come on: Defend the Decider; come out and fight; don't be such a cant; eh man, y'all kant; dar, when?

James R: "Moderator note: Please remember that Proposal threads should not be used for debating, but for agreeing to the terms of conduct of the debate."

That's debatable. Please remember that in cases like these, good knights may be compelled to throw down the gauntlet as plainly as can be done. What's the point of debating someone who doesn't know what they're getting into? That would be an unfair contest.

Challenger78: "I don't think that anyone is going to take the opposite side. people never do."

Maybe you're right, at least for the quality of convictions of the Bush supporters posting here. Or maybe we should allow them more time and opportunity. Could it be that such a dominant meme in US society as "They hate us for our Freedoms" has no sincere backing?

If that were so, how could that meme have gotten us so deeply into the shit?

[angrybellsprout]

That and the simple fact that I wasn't trying to debate you, but I noticed that we were on the same side and I felt that the proper thing to do would be to share some of the most basic of resources.

[hypewaders]

If we have no able opponents, then how have those of like mind with our opponents ascended to directorship of US foreign policy? If I could rationally do it, in advancing our understanding of this mystery -so help me- I'd switch sides for the purpose of an instructive debate here.

But having grown up in the Mideast, I'm intellectually and viscerally aware that "they hate us for our freedoms" is a naked lie. I know that love and desire for freedom are the very core of the universal, intrinsic human drive, or spirit- the core of any society's highest ideals, including those of the USA. I do suspect there's no passion for the alternative, only cynicism and denial. But I'm making allowance for the possibility that I may be wrong.

Come out and fight, you Beauties.

[Asguard]

if sure james could play devils advocate for you:p

pitty xev or adam arnt here they would do it:P

[Crunchy Cat]

I know its not the proposed position, but I would represent the position "They" hate us for our dominance.

[angrybellsprout]

I'd be willing to argue that "they" hate us for our dominance of their affiars?

[Asguard]

ABS you do realise thats what he was saying in the first place dont you?
That the reason they want to fight against you is because your stealing there resorces or whatever v they hate you because they hate you basically

[angrybellsprout]

Did you read my first reply or watch the video that I posted?

[hypewaders]

You must be looking for the Argument Thread (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915). That's down the hall, just past Abuse. This is Debate.. except we're forbidden to debate here.

[hypewaders]

Could it be that there is no rational basis in reality for the still rampant hate-us-for-our-freedoms line?

I've yet to encounter a cogent argument for it, nor a single person who will stand up to this challenge with any rigor.

[Challenger78]

Is it still running rampant on the airwaves in the US ?, I'd hope one of the presidential candidates would have cleared it up by now.

[hypewaders]

The neoconservative message has mutated now, but the meme persists, even as its proponents shrink away from any substantive debate, that might expose such suggestions to daylight. A more recent version is President Bush's unprecedented abandonment of the "water's edge" domestic politics convention, where he made a veiled comparison in the Knesset of Obama's emphasis on diplomacy with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. As with the status of this thread, there's a noticeable asymmetry of substantive policy debate in the Presidential campaign. The rhetoric flies, but real debate is dodged.

If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have any time, any place.-Obama (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/05/17/0517campaign.html)

In a very similar vein as found in discussion here, Obama offers to debate the issues, and offers to communicate with "Them" (neoconservatism's bogeymen). Obama's opponents in the Bush/McCain campaign only rant superficially about appeasement, and stoke fears of Iranian villainy, while avoiding any specifics or any acknowledgement of Iranian interests and diplomacy.

Obama:
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We're going to wipe you off the planet.'

McCain:
Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat.


This is what passes for intelligent debate in the mainstream, and is the most that Bush and McCain supporters offer here: Superficial fear-mongering, and a pattern of shrinking from intelligent debate.

[Zephyr]

It depends which "they". For the majority it would be policies.

Some Wahabists do hate what the West sees as freedoms and what they see as licentiousness, immorality, lack of self control etc, but many fundamentalist Christians (and other religious fundamentalists) would agree with them.

[kmguru]

Has anybody thought about - they hate us because of

Our freedom of religion
Our freedom of speech
Our freedom of sex (gays!)
Our freedom of dress (bikinis!)
Our type of laws (not cutting off the hands)
Our freedom not to choose 72 vigins :D

May be there is more....

Is that what we are talking about? If not just delete this post....

[Challenger78]

Yrsh, thats what I believe hype is talking about.

[synthesizer-patel]

Has anybody thought about - they hate us because of

Our freedom of religion
Our freedom of speech
Our freedom of sex (gays!)
Our freedom of dress (bikinis!)
Our type of laws (not cutting off the hands)
Our freedom not to choose 72 vigins :D

May be there is more....

Is that what we are talking about? If not just delete this post....

I think there is an element of that, but its fairly insignificant.
For example one of the reasons why Bin Laden etc turned their attention on the west, was because their dreams of sparking a revolution in muslim countries to sweep away what they saw as corrupt government and replace it with theocratic regimes failed so miserably.
They blamed the corrupting influence of western values on muslims for this failure, and therefore decided that it was the west who them must fight.

But its important to remember though that people of Bin Laden's ilk were always a very small minority of the islamist movement in general - most islamists are nationalists - fighting within their own countries to establish theocracy / remove imperialist influences - so its only when the west gets involved in these areas that we come into conflict with them.

So the balance is definitely in favour of B - our policies

[kmguru]

Bin Laden did not care about a theocratic government. The CIA threw him out after the Soviets lost the war. His actions are basically revenge. That is the inside story.

[synthesizer-patel]

Bin Laden did not care about a theocratic government. The CIA threw him out after the Soviets lost the war. His actions are basically revenge. That is the inside story.

Nothing of the sort - it was OBL's failures to install theocratic governments in places like algeria and egypt through his connections with and involvement in Islamic Jihad (there's a clue in the name there kmguru) during the 90's that led to him targetting the west.
He was never a CIA agent - merely an "asset" who was conveniently placed to help the US with their proxy war - likewise OBL wanted little to do with the US but was merely happy to accept money and arms from them.

This stuff is hardly difficult to research

[kmguru]

My DIA contacts say otherwise. My company does a lot of business with the intelligence community. Do not believe everything you read in public....:D

[synthesizer-patel]

My DIA contacts say otherwise. My company does a lot of business with the intelligence community. Do not believe everything you read in public....:D

Your DIA contact has either over-simplified it for you, is playing the party line, or is simply engaging in a bit of inter-agency rivalry ("hey if we'd have been given the job we wouldn't have fucked it up like those other guys" kind of thing ) - it smells like the latter to me.

OBL's actions are revenge of a sort - but not for the way he was abandoned by the CIA once he had fought their proxy war for them.

The fact that he is taking revenge against the USA for what he sees as their part in the abject failure of his brand of jihadism is extremely inconvenient in terms of the public picture that is portrayed of OBL and AQ by our governments and media.

It shows him for what he really is: marginalised by his own side, out of touch with even the mainstream of islamism, with little or no manpower, and no significant ability to threaten the west.

Think about it - it wasn't until AFTER the various islamist revolutions that OBL and Islamic Jihad (the organisation which he was a senior member of) supported failed that he turned his attention on the west - citing the corrupting influence of the west as the reason for the failure.

Ask your DIA buddy why he took so long in attacking the west

[Reiku]

How can you fight terrorrism... this is what get's me. It's like fighting fire with fire. Not only that, there can be no concievable notion that ''a war'' can defeat the nature of the human race. In other words, you cannot take terrorism out of a country like Iraq, and expect the war to be over, because it will always exist, unfortuntely.

It's war that's already lost, from the American and British goverenment side of things.

[Reiku]

And what will be next? What about the terrorism in America and Britain? Are we going to start a war on ourselves?

Bush should have continued diplomacy.

[CheskiChips]

I would like to assist Spock on his position. If there's a second to assist Challenger, can it be done?

[Vkothii]

Shit, it looks pretty simple to me: they hate you because you make stuff up all the time.

Money for example - the US financial 'industry' invents new ways to make money out of thin air almost every week.
The US and European leaderships invent reasons to sanction Arab countries every week.

Mostly, they hate you because you keep inventing religious reasons to hate them, when the conflict itself has next to nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with culture and access to resources.
They aren't 'allowed' the same access. You have to sanction any efforts by Arab countries because you want them for yourself (note: I'm using the term "Arab" generically, not geographically, I know Arabs are from Arabia, Persians are from Iran, etc).

[CheskiChips]

Shit, it looks pretty simple to me: they hate you because you make stuff up all the time.

Money for example - the US financial 'industry' invents new ways to make money out of thin air almost every week.
The US and European leaderships invent reasons to sanction Arab countries every week.

Money's a business.

[Challenger78]

I would like to assist Spock on his position. If there's a second to assist Challenger, can it be done?

Yeah, team debates can be done, Although you'll need to PM spock and collaborate to ensure that you say the correct things.
I'll assist Hype if he needs it.

[CheskiChips]

Yeah, team debates can be done, Although you'll need to PM spock and collaborate to ensure that you say the correct things.
I'll assist Hype if he needs it.

We won't need to; because we're both right.

[CheskiChips]

I'm kidding; I messaged Spock, and I will tell you if he will be active when he messages...he'll probably post here in any case after I sent him the link.

So as for the rules;
A party gives initial full statement.
Then 3 interjection questions for clarification / proof of citation from Part B
B second party gives full statement
Then 3 interjection questions for clarification / proof of citation from Part A

Then; the second party rebuttals the first.
Then the first the second...

etc etc.

Each party will only post through one member. And at this point all clarifications of definitions will be handled through PM. At the beginning of the next post, the Clarifications will be headlined at the beginning of rebuttal (if relevant).

Any ideas for change? Or are there set standards?

[Challenger78]

I recommend you check James Post.

[Mr.Spock]

its a holiday. maybe later. :)

[Syzygys]

It isn't the hating part but the why. After all we don't like them that much either...

[hypewaders]

Holiday's over, Spock, and we've still got 18 days before Chanukka. Everybody? Lets Rumble (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPDWTyHlpzk).

[Mr. Hamtastic]

It isn't hatred for the sake of hatred, it's out of jealousy.... consider the muslim man in the middle east...

Masturbation is bad. Drugs and alcohol are also bad. You have to wipe your ass with your hand. There is sand everywhere and it's either very hot or very cold. I'd be jealous, too. I think we should relocate everyone that lives there to somewhere more pleasant. Canada, maybe...

[James R]

Debaters and a debate format has not been agreed to. Thread closed.