Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (694413)	7/29/2005 9:29:47 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

YOU BETTER APOLOGIZE Mansour El-Kikhia .................................................. Mansour El-Kikhia: Arabs shouldn't have to apologize 07/29/2005 San Antonio Express-News mysanantonio.com I am fed up with the ceaseless requests by columnists, religious personalities and other American public figures for Arabs and Muslims to apologize for terrorist acts committed by thugs and murderers in the name of Islam. As far as I am concerned, the final straw came a couple of weeks ago when the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, paid for a national advertisement repudiating terrorism in the name of Islam. As soon as the advertisement was broadcast on America's media, I read a column by one of the nation's most ardent Islam-phobic columnists, Cal Thomas, now also a FOX News personality, which plowed into CAIR's reconciliation efforts. Long before 9-11, Thomas' writings were full of venom for Arabs and Muslims. He represents a despicable and ignorant attitude that, unfortunately, a sizable segment of America has come to share. There is nothing American Muslims can do to satisfy this group short of packing up and leaving the United States. I disagree with what CAIR did, and I also disagree with this groveling and begging for forgiveness, as though American Arabs and Muslims are responsible for those atrocities. CAIR knows better, and those running it know that Islam rejects all acts of violence outside self-defense. Arab and Muslim Americans are responsible for neither the twin towers nor the London subway bombings, and as Americans they should never accept responsibility for actions they did not instigate, commit or condone. Furthermore, in spite of the fact they are constantly condemned for one thing or another, they — like other Americans — are victims of these murderers. Does anyone think they are pleased to have their movements and telephone conversations monitored or that coercive and freedom-depriving laws are tailored for them? Does anyone in his or her right mind really believe that being an Arab American or a Muslim is pleasant in America today? The United States has lost 3,000 souls to terrorist thugs, but that figure is miniscule compared to the 60,000 Algerians or the 25,000 Iraqis who also have died at their hands. These thugs don't differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim, Arab and non-Arab when they plant a bomb or enter a village at night and murder everyone. It is rejection of U.S. and British policies in the Middle East, not Islam, that has promoted terrorism against America. And for the benefits of those who do not know, 95 percent of Middle Easterners are Muslims. Hence, it is only natural that those opposing the United States and Britain in the region would be Muslims. In India, they would have been Hindu; in Latin America or Northern Ireland, they would have been Catholic. More important, it was the British and the United States that drew first blood. The Middle East didn't come to America or go to Britain; rather, America and Britain went to the Middle East. Both powers used and abused regimes, toppling some and keeping others in power. They never thought that the people they were helping suppress were human beings with needs, beliefs and emotions. They didn't care as long as their interests were served. America's experience in the Middle East is no different from its Southeast Asia stint, and look at the mess it left in that region. However, while the calamity of Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea might be rationalized by the Cold War or even a domino theory, there is nothing to rationalize the invasion of Iraq except ideological stupidity. The United States illegally invaded and decimated a country that did not threaten its security and, in the process, unleashed one of the most vile and ruthless insurgencies the region has ever seen. And as it did in Vietnam, when the going got tough, it is planning to pull out. The result will be a protracted instability and turmoil that no country in the region can escape. Future turmoil in the region is exactly what the instigators of the Iraq invasion have planned all along. They had made their desire for strife in the Middle East known long before the invasion of Iraq. Yet they underestimated the consequences of their lunacy and set into motion processes and events that will make the United States less secure and threaten the lives of Americans for many years to come. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- melkikhia@satx.rr.com Mansour El-Kikhia Dr. Mansour El-Kikhia is an associate professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio, where his specialty is Middle Eastern politics and international relations. A native of Libya, he received his undergraduate degree in political science from the American University of Beirut. After coming to the United States, he received his master of arts and Ph.D. in international relations from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Before coming to UTSA in 1989, he taught at the University of California at Riverside and the University of Arizona. The author of two books, he is working on a third. More headlines Mansour El-Kikhia: Arabs shouldn't have to apologize Mansour El-Kikhia: Misguided policies scare off supporters Mansour El-Kikhia: 'Transformation' won't curb chaos Mansour El-Kikhia: Lies and racist distortion unfairly point fingers Mansour El-Kikhia: No accountability for Bush policies

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (694413)	7/29/2005 9:37:41 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Mansour El-Kikhia Dr. Mansour El-Kikhia is an associate professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio, where his specialty is Middle Eastern politics and international relations. A native of Libya, he received his undergraduate degree in political science from the American University of Beirut. After coming to the United States, he received his master of arts and Ph.D. in international relations from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Before coming to UTSA in 1989, he taught at the University of California at Riverside and the University of Arizona. The author of two books, he is working on a third. Mansour El-Kikhia: Lies and racist distortion unfairly point fingers Web Posted: 07/11/2005 12:00 AM CDT San Antonio Express-News As soon as I heard of the terrorist bombs going off in London last week, I called a friend to make sure he was unharmed. My friend owns a cafe on Edgeware Road, quite close to where one of the bombs went off. When I visit London I always go there to sample the variety of Middle Eastern foods or just sip Arabic coffee in one of the street's many outdoor cafes. Connecting was difficult, but I did get to talk to him. Although shaken, he was not injured. He confessed that his major fear was not from the bombs but from what was to come. Like many Arabs and Muslims living in Europe, my friend believes that the finger of blame would point to them. I advised him to close shop and take a few days off until the British authorities ascertain the true identity of the terrorists who committed the atrocious act or until the hostility dissipates. On the Internet, a small, unknown group claiming to be an al-Qaida offshoot took responsibility for the crime. However, only time will tell who is responsible. London is home to a large number of Muslims who found refuge from oppressive regimes in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia. Most have lived there for many years, peacefully and productively, within the bounds of British law and democracy. But since 9-11, terrorist incidents have sent shock waves through their communities, and no matter who committed them, they have become the first suspects. However, the British government and, to a large extent, the majority of people have been expecting this event and were wise enough not to blame their Muslim citizens and guests. And based on BBC interviews, reports and news bulletins, it appears the British do appreciate the shared feelings of sympathy, empathy and disgust expressed by Muslims in Britain at a crime against their society. The same cannot be said for the racist bigots and Islamphobes inundating America's television screens and airwaves. It was fascinating to see these modern black shirts compete to find the best insult to label Arabs and Muslims. Distorting reality with lies and half-truths were the rules of the day, and none was more proficient at that than the so-called "terrorism expert" Steve Emerson. Appearing on the "fair and balanced" network, Emerson appears to have no qualms about lying as long as he can verbally hurt an Arab or a Muslim. Listening to him leaves me feeling that to him, a Muslim or Arab must be guilty for merely being an Arab or a Muslim. It doesn't take an expert to determine that the majority of these widely interviewed "terror" experts know as much about Arabs and Islam as I know about quantum physics, which is practically nothing. And if only they spoke Arabic, their pain could have been eased by merely tuning to the Arabic service of the British Broadcasting Service on their computers. They would have heard Arab and Muslim institutions in Britain, as well as listeners from Egypt, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf and North Africa, condemn the atrocity. It is easy for these charlatans to blame Arabs and Muslims, yet nothing is ever mentioned of the individuals and policies that brought about this tragedy. Misguided policies diverted the war from Afghanistan to Iraq and, in the process, spared al-Qaida and provided it with new training grounds in Iraq. The event in London can be seen as a direct consequence of President Bush's Iraq policy, and it will not be the last calamity the world witnesses. These murderous wackos are not hesitant about killing civilians. It doesn't matter if they are Muslims, Christians, Jews or believers in the red Genie. Their purpose is to create chaos, and they have. Bush has foolishly opened Pandora's box and unleashed forces of radicalism and intolerance that are not willing to abide by the rules he set for conflict. They have demonstrated they don't care what it costs, and New York, Madrid and London are their proof. ________________________________________

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (694413)	7/29/2005 10:54:39 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

[Authoritarian leaders on BOTH SIDES of the battle (Saudi, Iranian, Syrian, etc.) would find themselves in an expensive, no-win conflict that would keep them occupied and internally focused... and would likely weaken their hold over their own populations. All this would have much more benefit then harm to US interests. Islam itself might ultimately come to reject religious extremism... moving closer to the centuries-delayed 'Islamic Reformation' as a result of the ultimate insanity of an Islamic religious war, formented by extremists on both sides.] "That is avery well reasoned thought. I hope you are not as overly optimistic as I appear to be." Thanks, Peter! I don't think my argument relies upon just 'optimism' (although I would be optimistic if changed our policies to be a bit more pragmatic and 'real politic'). Rather, I think it's simply LOGICAL that we would have a much better chance of achieving changes in the region more to our liking... and of reducing the emity that is building up against us, and the attacks, the blood-loss, and the massive counter-productive capital drain. All this would be GOOD for Western, and specifically, GOOD for US interests. After all, it was QUITE HELPFUL TO THE WESTERN DEMOCRACIES TO HAVE HITLER PITTED AGAINST STALIN. It was a smart strategy of Reagan to not stand in the way of the Gulf War between Iran and Saddam's Iraq (until he flinched at the end, and made the mistake of acting to keep Saddam from losing outright). It was also a smart decision of Reagan to not bog the US down militarily in the Civil War in Lebanon (which, can be considered as a microcosim of Iraq). I'd argue that it's not being very SMART to be comitted in Iraq as we are now, presenting ourselves as a target for blame and attacks by both sides... and acting like "Uncle Sucker" shoveling out BILLIONS upon BILLIONS that gets wasted in the endemic corruption, and shifting sands, of the region. Far better to wage a SMARTER (& 'quieter' war :) by removing the targets from our backs and letting the extremists exhaust THEMSELVES in attacks against each other, and put their causes in disrepute by their OWN actions. "There ia nothing we can do to placate the extremists, so perhaps we just need to allow them to vent on someone else." True. They can't be 'placated' any more then Hitler could be in Munich --- but they can be ignored as they pit themselves against each other (instead of us)... and exhaust themselves and bring their causes down around their own heads. I believe that roughly equal conditions of funding and military potential can be seen in the Saudi (& neighbors) Sunni combination... and in the Iran (& majority Shiite Iraqi population). WE CANNOT IMPOSE A SETTLEMENT on this --- only the locals can, in their own good time, as the military option will ultimately fail them, and CHANGE will come all unencouraged among them.