I meant America intervening in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia.

China has a better human rights record than the US does

That’s funny, do you know any other good jokes? You might want to read up on “The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” when you have time. Don’t skip the parts about cannibalism.

I believe the root of all the violence in the middle east is foreign intervention

You mean like Iran arming Hezbollah, or the Syrian occupation of Lebanon?

“Middle Eastern societies and for that matter most societies don’t like interference in their affairs. Just because the US has the clout to pursue its interests to the detriment of indigenous people doesn’t mean it should.”

I think this statement could easily be rewritten with Tibetan replacing “Middle Eastern” and China replacing “US.” China invaded Tibet in 1950, robbing it of its independence earned decades earlier. Many Tibetans would not agree that they are supposed to be a part of China. Also, I do not think the situation for uighurs is all fine and dandy:

in case the link didn’t post properly, copy and paste this: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/11/china10447.htm

As for American Presidential candidates, your right. McCain is pretty obviously not going to do anything good and Obama is all talk. Your also right that about Ron Paul. He is probably the most awesome candidate in a couple decades. Paul is the only one who supports fiscal responsibility and an immediate end to the Iraq war. He was not able to get the nomination because many of his ideas were unfriendly to big business (whose interests are in conflict with most Americans). Did you know he raised more campaign money than McCain up until the last few months?

The message I want to leave you with is that your right, the US is not perfect, but China is in no way great either. Just because they do not guarantee freedom or liberty does not mean they have the right to kill protesters by running them over with tanks. If that is true than all a nation has to do in order to be “justified” in committing genocide is to create a law or policy that says no other ethnic group aside from group A is allowed to live here and that all other groups are members of a 5th column who should be killed for treason. Then that nation can kill members of group B with impunity and no one else can challenge the nation because their ideals dont mandate any rights for group B. I know, thats a hypothetical, buts its this thinking that lets people get away with murder.

It is your opinion that Obama is for change but I must argue his track record does not support his rhetoric. I laud his efforts to get out of Iraq but he did after all vote for the Patriot Act and recently he did nothing to hold telecom companies accountable for invasions of privacy. Obama will not change anything. He is ready to bomb Pakistan despite international laws. He maybe better than McCain but the American people really did a disservice to themselves and the world by not voting for Ron Paul in the republican primaries. Apparently the honest people with proven voting records aren’t suitable to be leaders in society.

I believe the root of all the violence in the middle east is foreign intervention. Middle Eastern societies and for that matter most societies don’t like interference in their affairs. Just because the US has the clout to pursue its interests to the detriment of indigenous people doesn’t mean it should. It is only a matter of time that the tables will be reversed and maybe you or your children will be preaching the same views I am now.

Hasan, you are incorrect in saying that China doesn’t intervene to protect its investment interests – just like any other country, it most certainly does. It’s intervention policies might not be the same as other countries, but they still exist. Examples of this are actions by China on the UN Security Council. And, as Nissim said, China’s story has really yet to be played out. However, I’m surprised that Hasan is so supportive of China, when China is one of the world’s worst violators of human rights – and especially religions freedoms, including against Muslims in the Western Xinjiang Province.

Saying that China is the all-good-guy while America is the all-bad-guy is just as silly as me saying all Muslims are like Osama Bin Laden. And yes, you should fight for your rights, you should not sit back and let it happen. But there are Americans – and American politicians – who are sympathetic to that plight and stuggle. I understand your point that Obama can’t save this world, and people who think he can are delusional….but Obama’s slogan is “change” not “save.” No one person can save this world, it has to be a collective action by many. However, one person can make a change…and the office of President of US gives a person a greater platform on which to do so.

Americans have the right to be tired of the Middle East situation just like those in the Middle East are tired of it. Yes, Hasan, I am not on the front lines like you are, but that does not make my opinion any more or less valid than your opinion – it simply means we have different perspectives. A greater understanding of the other’s perspective will be what helps everyone ‘explore decent, well-informed ways of fighting terrorism’ as Esra’a so eloquently put it.

I wasn’t being threatening and didn’t accuse you of being a direct threat…..but there sure is some very nasty noise coming from muslim sources that sure makes many folks uncomfortable.

And there’s something just as nasty coming from American sources that sure makes our folk uncomofortable too. But guess what?

Islamophobia is only adding to the problem. Like it or not, these types of comments justify the anti-USA mentality in the Middle East. All the time you and other Americans continue to make us feel inferior because of our faith (there are other holy books that have violence, and there are other religions, especially Christianity, that had really violent histories, including extreme persecution of other faiths.) This is not the current issue. Because you, unlike most Muslims here, seem to think that Islam is the driving voice of this terrorism. Don’t tell me that you are guillable enough to think it’s Islam just because a few people think so. This is politics.

This is our religion Tonto. And you can criticize it all you want, you’ve got the right to, but when this criticism turns into justification for war, racism, and bloodshed all us other innocent Muslims (FYI, the majority) are going to stand up and defend ourselves.

I’m a Muslim and so are 1 other billion people, just because a few Muslims do turn to violence doesn’t mean that the entire Muslim population are guilty or that the blame should be on Islam. Don’t you see how many of us are risking our lives standing up for the rights of others, and other minorities, under the banner of Islam? Don’t you respect that? Or do you hate us and our faith so much that you want it eradicated due to fear-mongering in the US media and right-wing blogosphere, with their brainwashing and Islamophobic ideologies?

This is politics, not Islam. This is the fact of the matter. Join us by thinking about the real extremism and terrorism and explore decent, well-informed ways of fighting it rather than just adding to the issue.

We live here. We know what’s going on in our land and what’s happening in our name elsewhere. We certainly understand our faith more than anyone else. We face this terrorism every day and we know what it feels like to be oppressed and threatened with death just by being involved in human rights activities, instead of the faith as a whole which will not solve anything but rather just add more bullshit to the problems that we are already being forced to face. I am so tired of Islamophobic remarks on this forum, especially when people bring it up out of nowhere and then blame all our problems on it – it is so far from the truth and is just a testement to the fact that no one really understand what the faith is all about.

It’s funny that every other thread has to turn into Islam-bashing even if it were completely irrelevant, we should get past that stage. I’m not going to discuss that here.

I laud your efforts to eradicate poverty and your concern for the environment. It’s more than I can say for myself at the moment but I must be critical of your line of reasoning.

You missed the point I was trying to make with the Walmart example. Point I was making is that if money is your only motivator then once the environment is no longer a profitable business these people will no longer care for it.

The only way there can be peace with Muslims is if the West stop interfering in our affairs. It isn’t a question of money but of our way of life. If people threaten it and try to subject us, no money in the world will be able to placate the Muslim masses. So called human rights, women’s rights as defined by the west are not our goal. True Muslims don’t look for money at the expense of their brothers’ blood. How can I as a Muslim rest while my brothers are being subjected to injustice? The only hope we have is first and foremost to live as we wish in our own land without interference and subjection. If we cannot then we will keep aspiring to it as best as we can

And we can both agree that the drive to maximize profits is an inherent aspect of the global economy.

Let’s say, for the moment, that you are right about Western intentions, even though I personally happen to believe that a sense of idealism and humanitarianism is alive and well in America, and in many parts of the West.

Is it just possible, that we have entered a stage in human development where the inclination to maximize profits coincides with the need to bring some good to the world? In the past, it was all about making a buck, and yes, there were times when nations would step on anyone they had to, to keep the money rolling in. But could it be that that kind of model is no longer applicable, and no longer in anyone’s best interest?

Hasan, what are the three greatest threats we face in the world? I say: the threat from Ideological Extremism, the threat to the Environment, and the threat from extreme poverty. If these problems are inter-related, which they are, it makes sense that a solution could be devised that would solve all of them in one shot.

How are they inter-related? With extremism, you can’t come together to solve global threats like Global Warming. Extremism keeps people poor because the societies remain closed to global trade. A deteriorating environment can increase extreme poverty. Extreme poverty becomes fertile ground for extremist ideology. Extreme poverty can cause people to take actions which undermine the environment. And so forth.

Now let’s look at your Walmart example. They went with eco friendly packaging, not because of their concern for the environment, but because it saved them money, and was good for PR. OK. What do we care? If the environment gets protected because it saves money, and is good for PR, and for profitability, so much the better, because profitability will ensure continue committment to the cause of environmental protection.

You talk about China as being less imperialistic in its pursuit of capitalism. Perhaps, but the China story has not played itself out as yet. Only a small proportion of the Chinese are benefitting fully from the global economy. Wait until the poor people in the hinterland begin demanding their piece of the pie. Wait until people who are making money begin demanding greater political freedoms. Wait until a growing economy becomes unsustainable environmentally. Will China continue its non-interventionist approach?

There is an opportunity today to make something miraculous happen, something which would defy the conventions of the past. What if we use Western and Arab investment to make the Middle East the “mecca” of green technology? Could good paying jobs help to take people out of the clutches of extreme poverty? Could such jobs help to neutralize the hold of extremist thinking? Could these jobs help to mitigate the effects of Global Warming and environmental degradation. Could such an effort help to restore Arab pride? Could a growing economy be condusive to greater freedoms. Could women be empowered, as they deem fit, to assume their rightful place in society? Could the cynicism of the past be displaced by the promise of tomorrow? Could we begin to invest in one another, for the greater good, instead of using one another, for our own good?

I am trying to put a project together in the West Bank which would symbolize the idea of Selling a Vision of Hope. Build a factory that produces a green technology product that helps the environment in some significant way. Hire and train Palestinian workers to procuce such a product. Use Arab and Jewish entrepreneurs to run the place. And convince the Saudis to finance the deal.

If it works, which granted is a big if, you could attract worldwide attention, and garner additional funds for more such projects, for more such jobs, for more environmental protection, for more neutralizing of extremism, and in the end, for more hope. Is it at least worth a try?

Another example I would like to give is the biofuels initiative. Congress decides suddenly to go eco friendly (probably because some lobbyist paid money to them or because it might attract the eco friendly crowd) and introduces the biofuels initiative. This makes people in 3rd world countries use their crops to make biofuels for money even though that would mean less edible food in the market and thus thousands of people go hungry. This sort of initiative only serves the interests of the US.

Believe me the decision makers in the US don’t give a damn about us. One might say they provide a lot of aid to the world. This aid is full of strings attached and debilitating terms. Its more a hindrance than it is aid because it serves US policy which isn’t always compatible with our policies.

I disagree with your views on China though. China is not a capitalistic nation. It is not a communist nation either. It is a combination of both. It trades with other nations without intervention or bullying. It is investing in Africa not out of humanitarian gestures or to exploit it like Western nations but because it will benefit them and at the same time benefit Africa. China itself has an ancient history and culture which it has managed to preserve despite the ravages of war. Since we are on the subject of China I would like to mention the opium wars. There is no other motivating factor behind these wars other than money. Now England might pride itself as a civilized nation but its involvement as the guily partner in the Opium war and history in general contradicts this. Yet you have people like Winston Churchill calling Arabs dogs or worse.

To all those who believe the decision makers in the West have an ounce of humanity they are wrong. To all those who believe Obama is the savior prepare to be disappointed. To all those who thought the US were there to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan take a good look now at the state of those two countries. Just a couple of days ago the Americans bombed a wedding in Afghanistan killing 47 innocent people despite their advanced weaponry and intelligence systems. Learn from what they did to the American Indians and in subsequent times that they do not give a damn about humanity or freedom but that money is what drives them.

Even though I believe that the West should invest in the Middle East, to create jobs that protect the environment, I also believe that such investments should occur while respecting the sensibilities and aspirations of the people you are investing in.

If an African village, for example, wants to remain a farming village, then investments should be made which allow them to be who they are, and who they want to become. So, you might invest in healthcare, or infrastructure, or various supplies, that they need, but you should not try to deprive them of their identity.

Now it is true what you say that profitability is an inherent aspect of the American economy and culture. America is about maximizing profits, and it seems that the entire world, for the most part, is coming to the same conclusion. China, Russia, India, the former Soviet Bloc countires, and a great many other countries, are all coming to the conclusion that capitalism is the way to go, and that as part of a global economy, the idea of maximizing profits is important.

Does that mean that pure capitalism is necessarily the way to go? No. Any system taken to an extreme, will become brutal, and inhuman. And you are right to suggest that excessive focus on profits could lead to a loss of identity.

But you are not going to get rid of the inclination toward making money. What you can do is to curb and control that inclination by setting in place policies which take into account the desire to accumulate wealth, but which position that drive within the broader framework of environmental sustainability, and the search for peace. In other words, I believe that it is possible to give expression to the profit motive while at the same time protecting the environment, and giving everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future.

A system of this sort will be in everyone’s mutal interest, will sustain our environment, and will enhance the prospects for peace, while protecting peoples’ sense of who they are and who they want to become.

One way of thinking breeds conflict, and the other, cooperation.

When we say that America is the bad guy, or that the Middle East is incapable of helping itself, then we lean toward conflict. Everybody has a good argument. If you come down to it, everybody can argue his case. And the truth is that there is a plausible case for almost anything that anybody wants to say. America is imperialist. America is interventionist. America is wreaking havoc. The Middle East is full of terrorists. The Middle East is backward. The Middle East is steeped in extremist ideology. If you want to argue these things, well guess what; you can probably make a good enough case for your point of view. And guess what as well; you’re not going to get anywhere, because everone has a good case that can be made, a case just as good as yours.

Well, here’s the problem, we can no longer afford the luxury of conflict. The stakes are getting too high. When you bring nuclear weapons into the mix, you’re talking about the survival of the species. When you bring Global Warming into the mix, you’re talking about life as we know it. When you bring economic depression into the mix, you’re talking about sustaining a quality of life that is worth living.

The focus has to shift from conflict to cooperation. Yes ladies and gentlemen, we all believe in this and that, and we’ve all been taught to fight for what we believe. But let me suggest another approach. This may well be time to let go of some of what we believe, in favor of what makes sense. Even if we have a good point, we may have to let it go in favor of something more important. It is time to get over ourselves, and beyond our differences. It is time, before time runs out, to dream the impossible, and to make the impossible come true.

Rather than look for what is deficient in one another, we should look to our strengths, and use those strengths for the greater good, and not for the sake of outdoing one another. The problems we all face are global in nature, and therefore, if we are to have a prayer of hope to solve them, it will be by coming together, even if it means ignoring the past, and downplaying some of what we believe.

We have constructed around ourselves with all sorts of ideological barriers. Those barriers must come down. There is only one ideology, and that is believing in what makes sense. You may think that it’s very naive to think that. But I would say that it is very naive to think that we can carry around with us all this false ideological baggage and believe that we can do what needs to be done on behalf of our mutual destiny as a species. It is time to put reality above belief, and to create a reality that we can all believe in.

We’ll see what’s left after ya’ll blow hell out of each other.

This is, seriously, a very nasty thing to say and you should be ashamed that you’re even saying it. Do you hear that everyone? Tonto is implying that we are terrorist dirt who, without the heroic bombs of the USA that resulted in the blood of our own freinds, neighbors and families, will only resort to bombing each other. This is of course, not a racially motivated statement at all.

We truly appreciate the violent tactics within the region and honestly, it’s not inconvenient at all to have the US government shoved down our throats with their militaries and consistent bullying, because we don’t get enough of that from our own criminal leaders.

everyone thinks that the US is the entity to do the “fixing”.

Nope.

You don’t get it. We want the USA to fix its own mistakes that it has created; not to fix problems that it has nothing to do with.

If you hate us so much, here’s a thought: stop funding our dictatorships and being utter hypocrites about it. I find it so laughable when Americans express their fears of the “Muslims” and all the “darkies.” The terrorists you deal with? We deal with them on a daily basis at home and are working hard to fix this problem. We have our legitimate fears too, specially when the person running for president currently is openly threatening to bomb Iran into oblivion (of course when you do it, it’s “self-defence”), after your current president having dismantled Iraq and while your military is gaining a wider presence here in our own lands. Sure everyone, this is not threatening at all. It’s only the Muslims causing war. Oh, those Muslims! The USA will sure show them!

If you challenge her militarily, she will fight back. It’s part of American culture and security needs to meet any such challenge head on.

But if you partner with her, she will go out of her way to make that partnership successful. The inclination to partner with others, for the sake of profits especially, is also at the heart of American culture.

A lot rides on what other countries decide in this regard. Push her into a corner, and America will fight back. Seduce her into a partnership, and America will help you succeed, because in the final analysis, your success is in her long term best interests.