Precisely.

‘Whether they know who we really are does not matter, their peception is reality for all intents and purposes.’

Not in my book. I’ll come back to this later.

I think it is vitally important to realise that this statement is in fact false. It is false because it doesn’t add the qualifier: ‘in their countries’: after which the falseness of the statement can be clearly seen. It must never be forgotten that (with the exception of Syria and Iran) almost all the countries in the region serve US/UK interests in some way or other, either because they are simple client states (like Egypt or Saudi) or more general economic orientation (UAE and others). Since ‘we’ essentially own countries like Egypt (without our ‘aid’ the country would essentially grind to a halt) we could put pressure (to put it mildly) on the fascist governments that run them anytime we want. We (and by ‘we’ i mean, me, you) of course choose not to do so.

The statements that ‘abortion’ and ‘homosexuality’ are all illegal under all cirumstances in the middle east (which is what was hinted at above) is also false. Iran, for example, permits some abortions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4436445.stm). Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia also permit abortions in some circumstances. Their laws in this respect are not acceptable and we should obviously be trying to liberalise them, but they are no worse than the laws of Poland and Portugal (in this respect) and I don’t hear Poland and Portugal offered as examples of why ‘they’ don’t have the same rights as ‘us’. (http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_abortion_laws.html)

The situation on homosexuality is also a bit more nuanced than you implied. For example Jordan has no laws prohibiting homosexuality. However, the key point is that the Arab countries closest to the United States (Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan) have almost invariably the worst records on these and most other ‘social’ issues (note: homosexuality is technically legal in Egypt but gays are harassed via other legal mechanisms).

Finally, ok we wait with bated breath. You speak Arabic? Great. Do it. You have been to Iraq? Can’t wait to hear your travellers tales.

…speaking no Arabic, never having read the Koran (or any other Moslem text) never having been to Iraq (or Iran) having little or no understanding of the history of the middle east…

Actually I forgot, she is a brown skinned person, therefore a terrorist and must therefore be lying.

Dglp, you also are amusing me.

People who are said to hate us for who they think we are may be bigots without any clear idea of who any or all of us ‘are’. In that case, if you say ‘they hate us for who we are’ and disregard the evidence that ‘they’ are simply bigots, you are implicitly accepting that they know what we are and by extension, their judgement of us.

I think you have some confused concepts that need hashing out, so when you’ve nailed down exactly what the meaning of “is” is, let me know.

Whether they know who we really are does not matter, their peception is reality for all intents and purposes. We allow abortion, homosexuality, etc etc regardless of whatever qualifications you would posit. Maybe you should spend a few weeks browsing middle-eastern newspapers and then come back with your meta-physical “are they bigots or are they just meta-bigots who don’t know us well enough to become real bigots”.

Jet, which of these things that ‘we are’ do they hate: the ‘we are’ that ‘gives full support to the murder of unborn humans and gives legal acceptance of homosexuality as well as contraception’ or the ‘we are’ that is ‘deceiving us and you. They are destroying our democracy and our rights as U.S. citizens. They have no respect for our 200-year-old Constitution’?

Are you suggesting that ‘they hate us’ either way, regardless of our politics and our moralities, conservative or liberal? But even so, how can you be so sure that this is in fact what ‘we are’ and not simply what ‘they’ would like us to be? Indeed, what do you think we ‘are’? I’m not so sure you have any clearer idea than ‘they’ do.

Let me be emphatic about this. The argument about ‘hating us for who we are’ has to have a clear basis in the experience of one by the other, else it’s just bigotry. For instance, I cannot hate you for who you are because I haven’t a clue as to your character, your history, your actions. An assertion of hate would be bigotry, prejudice, and nothing more.

People who are said to hate us for who they think we are may be bigots without any clear idea of who any or all of us ‘are’. In that case, if you say ‘they hate us for who we are’ and disregard the evidence that ‘they’ are simply bigots, you are implicitly accepting that they know what we are and by extension, their judgement of us.

The two characters writing in the Tehran Times are taking potshots at an America based on each of them thinking we ‘are’ a particular thing. For you to take either of them at their word is to make both of them more credible in their claims.

Or to give another example:

‘On 9 November American marines came to our house. My father and the neighbour went to the door to meet them. We were not fighters. We thought we had nothing to fear. I ran into the kitchen to put on my veil, since men were going to enter our house and it would be wrong for them to see me with my hair uncovered.

“This saved my life. As my father and neighbour approached the door, the Americans opened fire on them. They died instantly.

“Me and my 13 year old brother hid in the kitchen behind the fridge. The soldiers came into the house and caught my older sister. They beat her. Then they shot her. But they did not see me. Soon they left, but not before they had destroyed our furniture and stolen the money from my father’s pocket.” ’

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1722397.php

Why do we white people, we Christians, hate Iraq? Don’t forget, it’s not for what they do, it’s for what they are.

Actually I forgot, she is a brown skinned person, therefore a terrorist and must therefore be lying.

What’s the phrase? Oh yes…’wake up’…..

Wisdom from fools and babies.

The Coalition is fighting with its head in a sack, we have no real idea whether the war is going well or not, except for the known statistics which look bad.

Needless to say, this is not a good position to be in when you’re fighting a war.

Sorry, but if this is the best example you’ve got for overturning the conventional wisdom in military intelligence I don’t think I’m convinced.

Actually, I thought this was an incisive comment. The Allies during WWII expected quick success in 1944, but the Germans scored quite well in the fall.

Things looked grim for the good guys. Only the German high command truly knew that this, their last gasp, was doomed anyway.

Or, for a more popular touchstone, the Klingon battlecruiser that attacked the Enterprise in “Elaan of Troyius” only seemed invincible because it was wired for speed and attack, not defense or ever going home.

It was on a terrorist mission, with no hope of victory, only of disrupting the peace process…

Incidentally, why are you wasting MY time writing about this? Why not write to, for example, John Ashcroft, who also wrote about why he was ‘winning the war on terror’? Clearly he has no idea what he is talking about. You should write to him immediately pointing out that only historians writing in the year 2025 could possibly know this.

This will be my last post on this particular subject as it’s all getting a bit silly, and it remains a beautiful day, (if I might be forgiven for enunciating disgracefully subjective opinions).

soru

You may well hazard a guess about that, and you would be wrong wouldn’t you? And not for the first time.

If anyone gives a shit (and Christ knows I don’t) put in ‘satire’ and Starship Troopers, and you will know that it was commonly accepted that the film (not the book) was intended to be a satire on, amongst other things, Heinlein’s own unpleasant political views.

‘I love it when someone who is so holier-than-though and so full of themselves as the Ultimate Voice On This Subject gets caught saying something that reflects less then positively on their intellect..’

Well hey mr pot, here’s mr kettle.

(this is my last post on this particular subject: it’s a beautiful day and life is simply too short).

Wow! And I thought the premise of Starship Troopers (where you only get to vote after having been in the army) was satire! Obviously not.

I love it when someone who is so holier-than-though and so full of themselves as the Ultimate Voice On This Subject gets caught saying something that reflects less then positively on their intellect..

I would also like to point out the obvious fact that whether the US win or (as seems more likely) lose this war will be a matter of fact not opinion, no matter how this matter will be spun by the pro-war propaganda machine.