Interesting opinion on International Reactions

[Fritz]

from: http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htlead.htm&base=htlead&Prev=0&BeginCnt=31

May 30, 2004: The stunning contrast in reactions by American and Arab leaders to atrocities has led to a lot of questions and a lot of outrage. President George W. Bush apologized for the attacks on Iraqi prisoners by American military police. Yet no comparable apology has come from Arab or Muslim leaders for the attacks of 9/11 or the beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg.

The difference is partially reflected in the differing situations. A number of Arab leaders are walking a fine line. One the one hand, they fear the consequences if they are seen to be siding with the terrorists. On the other hand, if they back the United States too much, they face risks from extremists, who will want them dead (as which happened to Anwar Sadat after he made peace with Israel).

The course of action seen as safest by many Arab leaders as a result of these events is to make an effort to play both ends against the middle. The Arab leaders will cooperate with the United States – often behind the scenes and out of the public eye. In public, they will often act as if 9/11 did not happen. There have been some exceptions. Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi has not only cooperated, but he has gone so far as to open his WMD programs to the West. This will be a treasure trove of information. Also, a Shiite cleric in Najaf, Mohamed Baker Al-Mahr, has issued a statement calling for the release of hostages taken by the insurgents in that country.

Those actions, though, are aberrations in the Arab world. The general perception is that an apology is a sign of weakness, and as such, many won’t apologize – until they see what happens to those who have cooperated. If Qaddafi and Al-Mahr survive, others will be encouraged to step forward and follow their example. If they do not, then it is unlikely others will follow, as the extremists will have proven that they are able to carry out their threats to retaliate against anyone seen as collaborating with the United States and/or Israel.

As a contrast, for the Americans, the actions of the MPs at Abu Ghraib are seen as the aberration. Americans (and those in the West) also see a difference in expressing regret that something occurred, and apologizing for something. It also is seen as a sign of strength to issue an apology when it seems warranted. That difference came into play in 2001, when a Chinese J-8II Finback collided with an EP-3E Aries intelligence-gathering aircraft. The Chinese demanded an apology, but later settled for an expression of regret that the Chinese pilot died in the incident.

Unlike the Chinese, the Arabs and Moslems don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between regretting an incident occurred, and apologizing for misdeeds. As a result, they will press harder. This cultural gap will lead to more attacks in the short term, as the misinterpretation of American regret as weakness will encourage the insurgents. But that misinterpretation could help America in the long run as there will be fewer insurgents left when the attacks are done. – Harold C. Hutchison ([email protected])

[Bee]

Seems like he's comparing apples to oranges to me.

It's one thing to apologize when someone representing your government does something horrible (as in the case of the American soldiers). It's something else to expect an apology from a government when criminals (or terrorists) do something horrible. I would expect comments about it being regrettable (which I did see from several Arab countries), but not apologies.

I tend to agree with his opinion about the difference in perception of an apology in the US and in the Arab world, but his entire opening IMO is pretty weak and really doesn't demonstrate his opinion very well. It seems that he had an opinion (which I happen to agree with) and tried to twist facts to demonstrate that his opinion was correct.

[Ksyrup]

Seems like he's comparing apples to oranges to me.

It's one thing to apologize when someone representing your government does something horrible (as in the case of the American soldiers). It's something else to expect an apology from a government when criminals (or terrorists) do something horrible. I would expect comments about it being regrettable (which I did see from several Arab countries), but not apologies.

I tend to agree with his opinion about the difference in perception of an apology in the US and in the Arab world, but his entire opening IMO is pretty weak and really doesn't demonstrate his opinion very well. It seems that he had an opinion (which I happen to agree with) and tried to twist facts to demonstrate that his opinion was correct.
I tend to agree. What the guy really appears to be suggesting is that Arab leaders admit that terrorism is an Arab/Muslim problem that they should be sorry for, which I think is ridiculous. I'm Christian, but I don't feel the need to apologize for nutjobs who kill abortion doctors. Those types of people don't represent my beliefs, don't define who I am, and have nothing to do with me. I suspect, and would hope, that the vast majority of Arab leaders, if not their constituents, feel the same way.

[sachmo71]

I agree with Ksyrup and Bee. They have nothing to apologize for, at least until someone ties a money trail from one of these leaders to one of these terrorist groups.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Agreed. I don't think Harry has this one right.

[JPhillips]

There is also a hint of racism to the piece. It reminds me of old-fashioned colonialism, "The savages just don't understand western values." I'm not sure the writer intended this, but its certainly there.

In general, though, the Arab leaders are worthless. Most of them are strong-man types that have no interest in democracy. Unfortunately we've supported many of these guys for years. That's why I think we're dreaming about democracy spreading in the Arab world. We don't want to give up the stability of our strongman friends. We shouldn't be surprised or angry that Arab leaders aren't practicing democratic values.

[Franklinnoble]

The Arabs don't apologize because a strict and fundamental interpretation of the Koran commands followers of Islam to convert everyone to their faith, and kill those who don't accept conversion. Period. They have nothing to apologize for, because they are acting upon a holy mandate to destroy the infadel.

[KevinNU7]

Harold's demands for Arabs to apologize for the acts of crazy Muslims doesn't make much sense in comparision to Bush apologizing for the acts of soliders.

The only ones who should apologize adn pay for the actions are the terrorists themselves and those who fund and train them

Edit: Realized Fritx didn't wrote the original psot

[sachmo71]

The Arabs don't apologize because a strict and fundamental interpretation of the Koran commands followers of Islam to convert everyone to their faith, and kill those who don't accept conversion. Period. They have nothing to apologize for, because they are acting upon a holy mandate to destroy the infadel.

Is that really true, or is it just the interpretation made of the Koran made by some sects?

[Desnudo]

The Arabs don't apologize because a strict and fundamental interpretation of the Koran commands followers of Islam to convert everyone to their faith, and kill those who don't accept conversion. Period. They have nothing to apologize for, because they are acting upon a holy mandate to destroy the infadel.
Kind of like the Christians did during the Crusades and Inquisition? :p

Edit: On topic, I agree that it's an apples to oranges comparison.

[Franklinnoble]

Kind of like the Christians did during the Crusades and Inquisition? :p

Edit: On topic, I agree that it's an apples to oranges comparison.
Apples and oranges, indeed.

There is nothing in the Bible that can be remotely interpreted as condoning the acts of barbarism committed during the inquisition. Christians admit this, and, in fact, the churches that were historically responsible for it have indeed apologized.

[Franklinnoble]

Is that really true, or is it just the interpretation made of the Koran made by some sects?
It's pretty plain in the text. I'll do some research later on it to find the passages that discuss the matter.

[Desnudo]

Apples and oranges, indeed.

There is nothing in the Bible that can be remotely interpreted as condoning the acts of barbarism committed during the inquisition. Christians admit this, and, in fact, the churches that were historically responsible for it have indeed apologized.

I don't want to go down this discussion road. I'll stand by my original opinion that the article is comparing apples to oranges and save my thoughts on theocracys for another day. Although if nothing in the Bible can be remotely interpreted as condoning the Inquisition, then why was it used as a justification?

[Franklinnoble]

I don't want to go down this discussion road. I'll stand by my original opinion that the article is comparing apples to oranges and save my thoughts on theocracys for another day. Although if nothing in the Bible can be remotely interpreted as condoning the Inquisition, then why was it used as a justification?
The Inquisition began before the Reformation... when highly corrupt church leaders claimed divine justification for everything from persecution to indulgences. The Bible had nothing to do with it.

It was the widespread availability of the Bible (thanks to the invention of the printing press) that sparked the Reformation, as people began to read the scriptures for themselves and started calling "bullshit" all over the place.

[mordhiem]

Just to throw the dates out there for reference. ;)

Spanish Inquisition 1480's - 1834
Roman Inquisition 1542 - at least late 19th century

First Bible printed - 1455
Luther's 95 Theses - 1517
Diet of Worms (normally seen as start of the Reformation) - 1521

The reformation/access to the bible did nothing to stop the Catholic church persecuting Jews, Muslims and then Protestants. Indeed, it contributed to its worsening in the Counter-Reformation.

[mordhiem]

dola

And as for the Koran, well it is such a mess both linguistically and in the wide varieance of authors (even more so than the Bible) that no-one really has a clue what it means. Islam has never had one central body to 'interpret' the Koran for the masses as the Pope did in medieval Europe, so there is no collective agreement on the scripture. It has always been open to individual interpretation, and there are some crazy individuals out there.

[Super Ugly]

I think we forget that not every person living in the Arab world is a fundamentalist.

[Franklinnoble]

Just to throw the dates out there for reference. ;)

Spanish Inquisition 1480's - 1834
Roman Inquisition 1542 - at least late 19th century

First Bible printed - 1455
Luther's 95 Theses - 1517
Diet of Worms (normally seen as start of the Reformation) - 1521

The reformation/access to the bible did nothing to stop the Catholic church persecuting Jews, Muslims and then Protestants. Indeed, it contributed to its worsening in the Counter-Reformation.
I have long maintained that the Catholic church is apostate, and can hardly call itself "Christian" in my opinion.

[Franklinnoble]

I think we forget that not every person living in the Arab world is a fundamentalist.
True... but the Arab world and its leaders fear the fundamentalists, and yeild to their demands more often than not.

[ice4277]

I have long maintained that the Catholic church is apostate, and can hardly call itself "Christian" in my opinion.
Please explain. Not trying to start anything, just curious.

[ice4277]

dola


Diet of Worms (normally seen as start of the Reformation) - 1521

I tried this diet a couple months ago, not bad, lots of protein, but it made me kind of tired and my mouth had a funny dirty taste the whole time.

[Dutch]

I lived in Turkey for 2 and a half years. Not once did the man on the street try to convert me or attack me. More often than not, they greeted me, shook my hand, and wanted to learn about my culture, my family, what I liked about the Turks, what I did not like about the Turks, what my opinion of President Bush was (that lead to more than one interesting conversation), and my opinion of Saddam Hussein.

As a matter of fact, they seemed more interested in the USA than many Americans and were especially fond of politics and really liked it when I would mention my favorite Turkish soccer player (which drew smiles or frowns depending on their allegiances).

Never once was Religion brought up except among my closer Turkish co-workers over some tea and a cigarette.

.....


The major problem facing the destruction of fundamentalist terrorism in the Middle East is their lack of home grown leaders that are against it. That is because the governments are so corrupt (even the Turkish government) that the ideologues of the region are simply unable to gain a leadership role. I take that back....a leadership role in the central government.

The closest thing to a true leader the Middle East has is the Ayatollah in Iran, and he is under tremendous pressure to reform the government from the educated youth.

The next closest is the Afghanistan leader Kharzai who was practically put in place by the US Government.

Following that, who? Mubarak in Egypt? No way.

Democracy in the Middle East is the only true way to defeat Fundamentalism.

[Franklinnoble]

Please explain. Not trying to start anything, just curious.
This is a loaded subject, and one that will certainly stir up any Catholics we have on board.

I'll give you a few quick bullet points on the topic. You can PM me if you want to discuss further, because I don't want to start a flame war.



The "divinity" of Mary. Nowhere in the Bible is there anything indicating that Mary is anything more than a good and faithful servant of the Lord. There certainly is no mandate to pray to her. Praying to anyone aside from God is, in fact, strictly forbidden.
The Catholic priesthood/papacy. Nowhere in the Bible is there any mandate requiring confession of sins to a priest. We are to confess our sins before God, and Jesus Christ is the only advocate we are meant to have before God. The entire bureacratic heirarchy of the church is contrary to the servant ministry exemplified by Christ.
Apostolic benediction/infallibility of the Pope. The notion of an unbroken history of apostolic benediction from the time of St. Peter is ridiculous, along with the notion of the infallibility of the Pope - past and present. There's no scriptural precedent for this, and to deny the current and historical corruption of the church is foolishness. These days, instead of selling indulgences, they're wooing young boys into pedophilic relationships. Oh, and there's no requirement in the Bible for clergy to remain unmarried. Scripture says it is good to remain celibate, if you can, but more than allows for married men to serve the Lord.
Let me qualify this by saying that I am not of the opinion that Catholics are going to hell. While I believe the Catholic church is doctrinally misguided, any one who accepts Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior and pursues the wisdom and knowledge required to have a personal relationship with Him is indeed saved in my opinion.

[panerd]

True... but the Arab world and its leaders fear the fundamentalists, and yeild to their demands more often than not.

I would imagine a Middle Easterner's view would be the same of the Western world. George Bush and his "May God be with us." Almost every Democrat and Republican reacting to disasters with prayer. Obviously here in the United States we realize this is how Christians show regret, but I bet a lot of Muslims don't understand that.

I think the same is true for us and our ignorance towards Islam. The quote earlier about how all branches of Islam call for the murder of anyone else is so absurd it isn't even worth getting into. But think about how often we hear praying to God in everyday situations. To them that is praying to Allah. But what do most Westerners relate with Allah? Terrorists killing in the name of Allah. What we don't understand is that is just how they say God. Does this make any sense?

[Sharpieman]

True... but the Arab world and its leaders fear the fundamentalists, and yeild to their demands more often than not.
Yes, many Arab leaders yield to what you call "fundamentalists." But a country isn't all about it's leaders, they may guide a country, but you'd be surprised how many people in Arab countries don't yield to fundamentalists. I hate this demonization of the Arab world. Thats all we do, yet the demonization is just a avenue that we take because we don't understand the Arab world, and tend to not try to understand it. As for you're comment on the Koran and how it condons the killing of those who don't convert. There are so many sects of Muslims in the world, and no one sect interprets the Koran the same. It's like saying that all Christians interpret the Bible the same, its just ignorant.

[Sharpieman]

This is a loaded subject, and one that will certainly stir up any Catholics we have on board.

I'll give you a few quick bullet points on the topic. You can PM me if you want to discuss further, because I don't want to start a flame war.



The "divinity" of Mary. Nowhere in the Bible is there anything indicating that Mary is anything more than a good and faithful servant of the Lord. There certainly is no mandate to pray to her. Praying to anyone aside from God is, in fact, strictly forbidden.
The Catholic priesthood/papacy. Nowhere in the Bible is there any mandate requiring confession of sins to a priest. We are to confess our sins before God, and Jesus Christ is the only advocate we are meant to have before God. The entire bureacratic heirarchy of the church is contrary to the servant ministry exemplified by Christ.
Apostolic benediction/infallibility of the Pope. The notion of an unbroken history of apostolic benediction from the time of St. Peter is ridiculous, along with the notion of the infallibility of the Pope - past and present. There's no scriptural precedent for this, and to deny the current and historical corruption of the church is foolishness. These days, instead of selling indulgences, they're wooing young boys into pedophilic relationships. Oh, and there's no requirement in the Bible for clergy to remain unmarried. Scripture says it is good to remain celibate, if you can, but more than allows for married men to serve the Lord.
Let me qualify this by saying that I am not of the opinion that Catholics are going to hell. While I believe the Catholic church is doctrinally misguided, any one who accepts Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior and pursues the wisdom and knowledge required to have a personal relationship with Him is indeed saved in my opinion.

First let me say that I'm not Catholic and I think that many of the things that the Catholic Church has done are inexcusable. But, I need to clarify you're statments. My girlfriend is a devout Catholic and has explained to me the in's and out's of her religion many times.

"The "divinity" of Mary. Nowhere in the Bible is there anything indicating that Mary is anything more than a good and faithful servant of the Lord. There certainly is no mandate to pray to her. Praying to anyone aside from God is, in fact, strictly forbidden."
This is one of your first of many misconceptions about the Catholic faith. Catholic's don't pray TO Mary. What they do is they pray through Mary in a sense. They ask Mary to tell her son, Jesus to pray for them. It's an odd thing to do but they believe Mary has some credence in the faith because she's the Mother of God. It's not that outlandish if stop and think about it.


"The Catholic priesthood/papacy. Nowhere in the Bible is there any mandate requiring confession of sins to a priest. We are to confess our sins before God, and Jesus Christ is the only advocate we are meant to have before God. The entire bureacratic heirarchy of the church is contrary to the servant ministry exemplified by Christ. "

They confess their sins THROUGH Priests to God. Kind of a middle man, and ask the Preists to in turn pray for themselves. I forgot the special name for it but there is one. Their idea is that the more people you have praying for you, the better off you are. Thats not that crazy, is it?

"Apostolic benediction/infallibility of the Pope. The notion of an unbroken history of apostolic benediction from the time of St. Peter is ridiculous, along with the notion of the infallibility of the Pope - past and present. There's no scriptural precedent for this, and to deny the current and historical corruption of the church is foolishness. These days, instead of selling indulgences, they're wooing young boys into pedophilic relationships. Oh, and there's no requirement in the Bible for clergy to remain unmarried. Scripture says it is good to remain celibate, if you can, but more than allows for married men to serve the Lord."

Just because you think that apostolic benediction is ridiculous, doesn't mean the Catholic church should disband. Catholics believe that Jesus told Peter that he would be the one to lead Christianity after Jesus was dead. Now when Peter became the spiritual leader of Christianity, thats when the Catholic Church was born. Also, there is no denying of "current and historical corruption." There was some conference of Catholics back in the day after WWII in which the Catholic Church kind of apoligized for their injustices of the past. I forgot the name of it, but if you look back in history, you'll find it. Also the current injustices, I agree they really haven't recognized them. Its horrible and all the injustices of the past were horrible too, but you have to understand the Catholics don't equate the injustices of the Church with the Catholic faith.

My opinion is that all religious institutions are ridiculous. The Bible, is largely illogical, many of the things that are in the Bible are ridiculous if someone steps out of their religious skin. But, whatever a person believes shouldn't be attacked. Just because you don't believe in it, doesn't mean you shouldn't respect it.