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

Not open for further replies.


Save Changes
Registered Senior Member
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:

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:

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.
Thanks ABS, for your offer of support, and for the clip you linked, which is a great intro.
Moderator note: Please remember that Proposal threads should not be used for debating, but for agreeing to the terms of conduct of the debate.
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 ?)
I don't think that anyone is going to take the opposite side. people never do. James, I suggest you delete this forum..
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?
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.
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.
if sure james could play devils advocate for you:p

pitty xev or adam arnt here they would do it:p
I know its not the proposed position, but I would represent the position "They" hate us for our dominance.
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
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.
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.
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.

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.

"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.'

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.
Not open for further replies.