Why Are the Muslims so Angry?

Why are the Muslims so angry about the United States? Ask them. The Muslim Brotherhoodhave been in existence since 1928. The aims of the Muslim Brotherhood are:

firstly the introduction of the Islamic Shariah law as “the basis for controlling the affairs of state and society;” and secondly work to unify “Islamic countries and states, mainly among the Arab states, and liberating them from foreign imperialism.

In other words, they want to bring about a Muslim ‘caliphate’ or empire that stretches from Indonesia to Spain and beyond. Why are they angry? Because they believe Western imperialist powers have occupied their lands and dominated their people through direct force, economic muscle or by erecting and propping up dictators who suppressed them. Here’s General Wesley Clark:

YouTube Preview Image

This is exactly what we’ve done, and the so-called Arab Spring was not simply to rid their own countries of dictators, but to rid their countries of us–the United States, Britain and France. Have we invaded their lands, dominated their people and their politics, supported dictators and helped suppress the people? Of course we have. Can you blame them for wanting us out? They view us as an occupying foreign force. You know–like Russia occupied and dominated the Eastern European countries.

Are the wars we’re involved in for the defense of our own country, or have we used our military might to invade other countries, or sit on their borders flexing our muscles in order to establish the dominant military presence in the Middle East? That’s exactly what we’ve done.

The vast majority of Americans don’t realize that the Muslim world (and most of the rest of the world) regard America not only as superpower, but as an aggressive one. We may disagree with them, and their perception may not be correct. All that is up for debate.

The only point I’m making is that we will never begin to understand our unpopularity abroad until we accept the fact that the perception of the United States overseas is, for very many people, one of an imperialist aggressor who goes wherever it wants and takes whatever it pleases, and if this is the perception of us overseas, we would be wise to ask why that perception exists and persists.

Could it be that we have done something wrong? Could it be, at least partially, our fault?

Frank Weathers blogs in a similar vein here.


Why Are Catholics Against Gay Weddings and Women Priests?
Holy Week: Priests, Power and Penitence
FaithWorks! – Lent 5
Can a Woman be a Patriarch?
  • vox borealis

    In other words, they want to bring about a Muslim ‘caliphate’ or empire that stretches from Indonesia to Spain and beyond….Have we invaded their lands, dominated their people and their politics, supported dictators and helped suppress the people? Of course we have.

    “Their” being a historically relative term.

  • English Catholic

    I can’t speak for my fellow countryman but the so called ‘great satan’ will always find a friend in the heart of this Englishman, 70 years ago when the nazi war machine was poised to overun the last free country in Europe the United States lent a hand in the defeat of hitler’s maniacs (and if the republicans hadn’t held things up you would be have been here earlier) and for the next 40 years the American guarded ungrateful Europeans against the menace of the USSR. And what did you ask for in return? tribute? the enslavement of the defeated Germans and japaneese along with their land? No all you asked for was enough land to bury your dead

  • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

    Thank you. I hope that our overseas adventures today are engaged in with the same spirit.

  • David

    Actually, the land from Spain to Syria had been part of the Catholic heartland from about the 4th century (Spain is an ambiguous case only bc the Visigoths were Arian at first, but became Catholic by Theodosius’s time if not earlier) until the violent Muslim conquests of the 8th century.

    *They* are the invaders and occupiers from any informed Christian p.o.v. I don’t expect them to accept that and walk away, but I at least expect Christians not to accep their narrative uncritically.

  • Glenn Juday

    I am afraid that I must observe that Fr. Longenecker’s post is under-informed or ill-considered to an unfortunate degree.

    In my opinion, his posting reflects the internalization of the Oxbridge view of the world circa 1970s-90s in which a comprehensive catalog of the ills of the underdeveloped and unstable countries of the world were, by a consensus poorly backed up by shallow evidence and analysis, placed at the feet of the U.S. Ironically, the people in those regions did not particularly believe it, although a number of them were clever enough to observe that if opinion leaders in the U.S. believed it, they could thereby wield a very handy tool for manipulation of our behavior or policy to the benefit of the faction they were striving to place in control of their own societies.

    Unfortunately for us, the faction in the ascendant in the Arab world right now is a loose coalition of Islamic believers (it is not really necessary to call them radical or fundamentalists since they do not fall that far outside the mainstream of historical Islam) that has decided mass murder of us and any others who get in their way is just the tool for the situation of today. In their view we are weak in will, dissolute in our behavior, declining in power. From their perspective and according to their values that is a virtual invitation to attack.

    Of course the Islamic insurgents will tap into any resentments of outsiders they can find within their societies, and there are no shortages of such resentments, internal and external. They do not resent the propping up of dictators per se (as the Palestinians under Hamas and many others have discovered, and Egyptians are about to discover) but the fact that the U.S. provided assistance to dictators who were an obstacle to their will to power.

    This leaves abundant room for criticism of the execution of U.S. foreign policy in any number of locations and times, and even some of its aims. But in my opinion, asking what the are the roots of Muslim anger is a non-sequitur. Anything, anything that represents an obstacle to the immediate implementation of Islamic-themed, sharia-based (or at least quasi-related) social organization is by definition a target for anger. It is directed at us right now because we are visible, and crucially, we are perceived to be hopelessly confused, easily manipulated, and weak. I sincerely ask all of us to take care not to add to the confusion.

  • Paul

    What a convoluted revision of history and reasoning. For the Muslim originated in Saudi Arabia and did not possess anything outside that piece of land until after Muhammad’s death and his caliphs marauded their ways across the Middle East up into Europe, raping and pillaging their way in the process. So, if anyone should resent invasion and occupation it ought to be those whom the Muslims have been oppressing and murdering the past 1400 years.


  • http://platytera.blogspot.com/ Christian

    They hate us because they hate themselves even more.

  • pam

    The Muslims would be angry with us even if we were perfect which of course we are not. Their founder was a murderous, angry, hatefilled, mysogynistic, pedophile so it only makes sense that his followers (not all of them) would also be filled with hate and anger. After 911 some people said that we got what we deserved for all our sins (of which we have many.) Still we have the potential of being the greatest force for good in the world. After 911 we needed to rally together against an enemy who wants to destroy us BECAUSE we are the greatest force for good in the world NOT for our many sins. So it was not the right time for beating ourselves up and it doesn’t make any sense for us to do that now that they have killed one of our ambassador’s (which I think is an act of war.) Yes we have alot of evangelizing to do in this country but I know in my own personal spiritual life I cannot stay focused on my many sins because that is when the enemy pounces.

  • http://www.scenesfromaslowmovingtrain.blogspot.com annie

    THANK you, David. Amazing to me how conveniently this is always forgotten.

  • mike cliffson

    If I may make so bold, you are conflating two different things.
    One’s conduct in the light of God’s justice, loving one’s neighbour as oneself.
    Moslem motives, let alone reasons, for rage.
    Since when are these two things necessarily the same ?

    Any Christian should make examinations of conscience; yet this is usually nasty at a national level; and anyhow, for Americans,there is much you must have observed as an expat in the UK.
    But that said, the question is: have I wronged God in any way? Have I wronged my neighbour in any way? Have I inadvertently done anything my neighbour will perceive as a wrong? Come to that, have I wronged myself in any way?
    Of course we should ask ourselves all that! Collectively too! But as a summation of individuals, not as a collective process!
    Brits used to be taught history, simplified , biased both by locality and religion. Catholics typically got “good king Philip” II (of Spain), Protestants “baaad king Philip.”and so forth.
    In trepidation I venture to equally simplify for you cousins on a cousins blog:
    Americans got a list of american Presidents.
    (Ive lost an American text book wherein prehistory to 1776 took two pages, then covering louisiana puchase, the west, civil war, WWI . depresion, WWII, cold war.
    Brits now, if they get any history at all, get vile whining everybody-else-is-a-victim apologetics for anticristianity,antimorality, terrorism , paganism, etc, and I understand the same is true stateside.
    As to why is my neighbour, in this case internationally, Islam, angry with me?
    Well, challenge that “be angry with “, and change to” able to work themselves up into a rage about.”
    (I would agree with most of the posts above, David, Glenn Juday, English catholic, with much to add , but….)
    But consider the nature of Islamic society, and the changes in it these past decades and more.The mechanism is the same in Indonesia Pakistan and North Africa, it’s NOT a racial thing.
    How do copts IN eGYPT get done for, other Christians anywhere in Moslem countries,, and come to that Buddists in Siam, hindus in Kashmir, Pakistan , and bangladesh. even Moslem sects considered heretical? There is a very consistent pattern, and Just as under Moslem rule in spain, consistent historical cycles.
    For Christians, behave we well or behave we badly, there remain two fundamentals.
    If thus they treated the master , what can his unworthy servants expect? From anyone?
    Secondly, and seldom recognized: Baptism. We take it for granted. We shouldn’t.
    Most acutely with moslem fundamentalists in contact with the idea of a creator, God of Abraham and Isaac, but who dare not even consider knowing him as the God of love he has revealed himself as, who are in that way more in contact with aspects, but only aspects, of eternal reality than most secularized westerners: heaven and hell are utterly real, damnation perfectly possible, and quite likely, and who suffer great and permanent anguish in this world , mentally treading a narrow path across a vast , wearying, limitless unforgiving desert of sand and rock under a harsh bright revealing unbearable sun, with no respite nor comfort, with a thirst forever unquenchable: unconscious envy of baptism , and hence of the baptized .

  • mike cliffson

    Oh , and something touched on in the original post: Why the West in general and the USA in particular?
    The moslem brotherhood in 1928 are not adding anything in regards to a caliphate. We project Christian ideas of the kingdom of god, and plenty else, onto other religions, we see other religions as if they were Christian,and they aren’t.
    Any non – Islamic world’s topdog is a scandal,a shock, something that shouldn’t be, an affront, be it Ghengis Khan or the USA, regardless.

  • http://www.thismysymphony.blogspot.com Lindsay

    I think it is strange that people are citing the fact that Muslims invaded those lands centuries ago so it isn’t really “theirs” anyway because of events in the 8th century or 15th century or whatever. That is pretty narrow considering America’s own history. Do we not hold any claims to our lands because we are not Native Americans? Of course not. Whatever their ancestors did in the past, it IS their home now, and it is only natural that they would view American and European forces as occupiers of *their* land. Our motives, intentions, and the necessity of our presence are up for debate as Father said, but to declare that their perceived rights as inhabitants of a land are somehow questionable because of events that happened in the distant past is silly, imo.

    I would also add that most of what they see of the subsequent American and European influences in their countries is in feeding the vices of materialism and immoral entertainment. Given the nature of of their religion and obvious prejudices, we’ve hardly helped ourselves or given them any reason to view Christian nations in a positive light. They don’t see us as we are, they see us as Hollywood portrays us. If that was all I knew, I wouldn’t like us either (though, I like to think I wouldn’t riot and kill people because of it).

  • http://www.thismysymphony.blogspot.com Lindsay

    *Sorry, I meant “Of course we do” above.

  • Janan Webb

    History has also proven that Christians are not necessarily, righteous, peaceful people. You have not really studied your scripture…if you reall did you would not speak ill of Jesus’s (on Him be peace) fellow Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) or any other Prophet….you will never hear a Muslim ,who understands Islam defaming a Prophetor Messenger of God. even your scholars know you don’t know anything about your religion…so you should check who’s being blindly led even when your scholars try o shed even a little light you cover your eyes. Shame shame shame on you.

  • veritas

    I know this will sound strange but I think nearly all the apparently contradictory posts above are correct!

    The Muslims have been threatening and invading Christian countries for many centuries and have been at various times beaten off or repelled through the grace of God.
    The basic tenants of their faith teach that it is proper to enslave or destroy the infidel (non Muslims).

    It is also true, as a previous poster said, that the United States came to the aid of Britain, Europe and my country Australia, and saved us from slavery or worse at the time of World War II. And for that I am eternally grateful.

    However, it is also true, as Father has suggested, that in recent times the United States has involved itself in the affairs of many countries who simply don’t have any desire or concept of Western democracy and don’t want us there.

    Too many Americans, Australians and other Europeans, have died in Afghanistan fighting for a people who don’t want them there and seem content to wallow in thousand year old tribal battles.

    I love America too much to not be distressed at how much America seems to be hated around the world.

    I would ask Americans, for the sake of their own people, to get out of the countries that don’t want them. Let these countries sort out their own messes or live with the corrupt violent systems they seem to believe in.

    America: be strong, defend your own country, help defend allies who respect you and want your help – but stay away from those who hate you, who don’t share your values, who will only repay your intervention with hatred and contempt.

  • JamesR

    Yes of course, all the bad and suffering in the Muslim world and elsewhere is indeed the fault of the Great Satan, the Imperialistic Colonialists!

    As an American taxpayer who would just as soon no longer have a dime of his income that is forcibly extracted from him by his Federal overlords be sent to countries where the populace is clearly encouraged to hate and resent us, I propose the following:
    1. That $1 billion in aid (a small portion of which comes from my paycheck) for Eygpt be rescinded. All US foreign aid money to Muslim countries and any other African nation where rather that gratitude we get insults — end it all. Resent us? Hate us? Consider us “imperialists?” Fine – go your own way – the spigot dries up.
    2.That goes for Israel too — alas, and tragically. The loss of our support will of course necessitate Israel taking extreme and violent measures to attempt, as best it can, to ensure its survival and avoid wholesale slaughter at that hands of practitioners of “religion of peace.” This will result in 100′s of thousands of Muslim deaths. Sorry about that.
    3. Japan? We, meaning the American taxpayer, has been footing the bill for your national defense for almost 60 years. You’re on your own. Worried about China? Re-arm yourself at your own expense.
    4. Great Britain, Germany and our other so-called Western European “allies?”. Where America-bashing and blaming Yankee are national past times, ranking right up there with soccer hooliganism and placating the every-angry practitioners of the “religion of peace” in your midst? Worried about the Russian Bear? See Number 3. Time to shut down our German bases. Bring our guys home. Tired of footing the bill for your security, quite frankly.
    5. They don’t much like the US in S. Korea either, from what I understand. Ta Ta, and Toodle Loo, then!!

  • Thierry P Wersinger

    The reference to the Islamic Brotherhood reminded me about this fascinating article from the Wall Street Journal showing how they managed to take advantage of the Cold War with the backing of the CIA to get a stronghold in Europe. A little like the story of Osama ben Laden, an other intelligence screw-up in the context of the Cold War. Mind you, I don’t blame the Americans, the Cold War was the threat of the day and thanks God with his instruments Pope JPII and Ronald Reagan we were able to defeat the Evil Empire in the face of those who preferred to be “rather Red than dead”.
    We need the same spirit to deal with Islam. Our Lady of Lepanto pray for us.
    How a Mosque for Ex-Nazis Became Center of Radical Islam

  • Mark G

    As for the history of the United States, I would like to add that although the various American Indian tribes were conquered and treated shamefully, American Indians today do not set bombs in shopping malls or fire rockets into villages or set ambushes for public buses. There is something else going on here besides the sins of America and the western civilization.

  • mike cliffson

    Your point number 4 including the English :
    Im not going to apologize for Brit America-knockers unless you do the same for yours, including your present Government, enemedia, academics, etc.
    But just because your media don’t show nor mention Brit squaddies (aka soldiers aka military) coming home in body bags from Iraq and Afganistan in proprtionate numbers to the US, ( 300million, 60 million) doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, just as day byday, month by month, year by year.*
    What do you want , permanent good mouth on your media screens to help you feelgood, or genuine fighting military support? You want to alienate brits even more – your potus is good at that- and up Us bodybags coming home in that proportion? Up to you.

    *The only exception- for the USA -to being in it together since WWII was Vietnam. Early on in the fight the then UK gov , a useless load of socialists like Tony blair, with, like tony blair, some priorities right, sent a team stateside with everything the Brits had learned in cyprus and malasia about SUCESSFULLY fighting irregular, or irregular -seeming, terrorists and guerillas.One thing the brits learned in Cyprus was: DONT use draftees, (military servicemen), for sheer efficiency , and not just, but not excluding, the propaganda war ensuing at home with communist pushing.The offer: we’re in with you with fighting troops, no strings, IF you limit troops on the ground to professional soldiers.
    The advice, tactics, and offer went disregarded, they were shown the back door of the Pentagon, the white house, and foggy bottom.(But not Langley -, completely, It’s your present potus who’s pulled the rug from getting Brit intelligence as an intake, did you know?) Do you think they were wrong?

    Your post illustrates one point in the soulsearching for USA Not from a christan p.o.v., but a worldlywise one : it’s not a bad idea to cultivate timetested and proven friends, even if their kids get rowdy and misbehave.

  • Charlotte

    Maybe I misread, but are you under the impression that America has a draft? We’ve had an all volunteer, professional military for decades.

  • Zwetschgenkrampus

    With all due respect, English Catholic, the victors of the Second World War were humans – not angels. So they asked for enough land to bury their dead, as you rightly pointed out, but also for some details besides. Nothing major, of course. Just some peanuts, really. Being the leader of the free world for several decades has always been its own reward. From the economical point 0f view, the USD being the lead currency of the West has been a burden and brought absolutely NO benefits to the national economy of the USA. Having to maintain all these bases around the world is a major drain on the national coffers, since they cannot be used for any purpose beneficial to the USA or its national interests … or can they? So, while the Germans were guarded against the Red Army by the USA, it was also with the firm understanding that the next edition of the battle of Stalingrad would be fought on German soil. Which would have been tough luck on any civvies who happened to be around … interestingly, today the same formula applies worldwide to any civilists who happen to be their native soil and any missiles fired from US aircraft. Face it, when fighting terrorists, diplomatic niceties or human rights do not really apply. And when in doubt, troops will fire first and leave the mess to someone lucky enough to sort it out – later.

  • doughboy

    veritas, you summed up things well and i, as an american, agree totally with your latter statement; especially considering this morning’s killing of 4 more americans by an afghani.

  • Glenn Juday

    The discussion in this thread includes a few responses that need to be clarified.
    Muslim true believers are taught and largely believe that the boundaries between the house of submission (societies forcibly placed and kept under the rule of Islamic law and polity) and the house of war (societies that have not yet submitted and thus are an affront to God) are fluid, not static. It is a failure of historical knowledge and interpretation of the first magnitude to misunderstand this point. Ask Christian immigrants from Islamic societies now living among you if you have any doubts – they certainly got more than a small taste of the flavor of the cultures they left. This failure to understand the mindset of Islamic societies is also a basic feature of “informed” elite opinion in western nations, and arguably the more secularized these societies are the more deeply held is this odd belief in a basically passive, benign character of Islam that could be satisfied by a few political arrangements.

    Of course, history provides examples of Islamic societies existing in long periods of inward-focused somnolent repose with respect to their Islamic “duties,” and thus not a significant threat to any external society. But this large exception also explains the reforming, zealous character of the most aggressive periods of Islamic mobilization.

    The “Nahda” (Revival) movement in the early 20th century was supported as an attempt by the diverse elements living in the polyglot late Ottoman Empire – Christians, Druze, Jews, secular intellectuals, revolutionary socialists, reformers, etc. – to produce or manufacture at least a partially non-Islamic identity suitable for a nationalist-like or pan-Arab movement to throw off the Turkish overlords of the Ottoman Caliphate. By the 1930s a structured pan-Arab movement and ideology was in place that combined nationalist and Marxist elements. National identities were strong in some places (e.g. Egypt) and weak in others (early stage Iraq). But the attractions of socialism have faded. So, in the end, Islamic ideology and character has remained or even grown compared to other elements of political/social identity. Now even the national rivalries (Iranian vs. Arab) are suffused with competing Islamic identities (Shia vs. Sunni). Ideological, cultural, religious cleansing is well advanced in the Islamic world.

    So, if the principle is accepted that historically the boundaries of Islam were pushed forward aggressively, and that the fundamental belief structure of Islam holds that the boundaries must be further advanced, what possible legitimate objection in principle (not specific outcome) can the Islamic world have with the boundaries moving the other way? It is intellectually incoherent for western societies to hold simultaneously to a policy of accommodating the Islamic imperative for conquest and domination, essentially writing off their fellow Christians and the fundamental and universal rights of others, while simultaneously holding that intervention in Islamic states, particularly aggressive ones engaged in actual violence or tolerating violence in principle as an Islamic imperative (e.g. Pakistan) is a uniquely unfair stance that it is the basis for Islamic resentment and aggression. People and movements that declare openly that they are out to kill you, that have an impressive record of actually killing and planning to kill, can be safely assumed to be sincerely interested in conquest. The Islamic desire for conquest is antecedent to the track record of wins and losses, and so cannot explain the desire.

    What offenses have a Hindu society (India), or a Buddhist society (Thailand), committed that make murderous Islamic attacks “understandable?” Islam is comfortable in being at war with them plus Jews, Christians, atheists, secularists, animists, and others too numerous to mention.

    Given these facts, a more realistic appraisal of the Islamic phenomenon by the U.S. is needed. As a global power in the commercial, military, and cultural realm, and an open society capable of self-criticism, America is a natural and tempting target for Islamic advancement. A specialty of Islamic warfare is a steady stream of petty, harassing attacks, with strategically timed truces, and constant instruction in the natural right of Islam to dominant the target as a Divine mission. The opponent is to be exhausted morally, militarily, demographically, and especially in morale to the point that capitulation comes to be seen to be desirable. Failure to understand that is a fatal failure.

    Given the deep, deep division that has now emerged in America between the elite opinion makers with their aggressive, even punitive promotion of unsustainable sexual excess, materialism, and relativism, versus those who believe in objective truth and are formed to some degree in Judeo-Christian beliefs, America is vulnerable to a significant degree to the traditional Islamic approach to advancement. The crucial pivot point is our culture, and the Church, as always, has abundant riches to offer that will produce a confident culture of life and moral aspiration that will be immune to the threat. The outcome is up to us.

  • mike cliffson

    Charlotte: you misread.
    Not at the time of Vietnam you didn’t have ALL professional voluntary military.
    For possibly good reasons , you sent draftees to vietnam, which is precisely why you didn’t have freely-offered british allies alongside, see above..THEN you went professional.
    Latest bodybags from Afganistan: 4 usa, 2 uk, according to a news item I just read.God rest their souls.

  • Michael Gray

    Well said, Glenn Juday. I was hoping someone would dispassionately articulate the larger vista.

  • Rosemary

    Impressive analysis, Glenn. I have done a great deal of reading and research this past year on the subject of Islam. I encountered dozens of articles and books written by secular and religious writers who pretty much agree with you. I will add that I believe “the outcome” primarily depends on prayer — and fasting.

  • SouthCoast

    In fact, we are, in large measure, under assault by the descendants of apostate Christians who chose to convert under the sword rather than stand fast in their faith.

  • Stephanie

    I wish I could care about why they hate us. First of all one can never understand evil and I am sorry but until they stop threatening Israel, killing Americans, telling Christians we aren’t allowed to celebrate Christmas (this is happening in Britain..BRITAIN!) I don’t care why they hate us. Why does it matter? They don’t care if we are trying to understand them. Imperialist aggressor? Really? Someone please find one place besides and embassy compound that is an American colony.
    You have it wrong here. That whole notion of Imperialism etc. is an Islamic myth. Much in the same way that anti semites view the Jews. I am a military wife, none of our people are thrilled with being in those places but they brought it on themselves. Pope John Paul II made it very clear after 9-11 that we were justified in going after the perpetrators. We are justified in our outrage at the vile treatment Ambassador Stevens had at the hands of these people. When are we going to learn you cannot reason with evil. These are not Soviets. This is a far more malicious enemy.
    Consider this: I had a debate with a muslim woman about the brutal tortures and crucifixions of Coptics Christians in Egypt. She declined to answer my questions. Then I had a debate with another Muslim, a man about this issue. He was callous, and behaved as if these executions were justified. The Christians had it coming. How is one supposed to understand that? That was an American muslim by the way. Think about it. These people are among us. God helps those who help themselves. I refuse to stand hat in hand saying please Mr. Angry Childish Muslim don’t be mad at me. They have to learn to live in the world with us, not the other way around.

  • Stephanie

    Sorry our way of life is no reason for them to behave the way they do.

  • JamesR

    Mike Cliffson — I am not sure where you are coming from when you say American media, academics, etc., “knock” GB. Yes, the US has always been shamefully self centered, in terms of not giving proper credit to our Allie’s contributions to, e.g., war efforts. I’m sure even back in the early 40′s, Monty and his lads’ contributions were either ignored or minimalized by our media and the attention they gave to Patton et al. Not the same thing as the regular hate-fest anti-American bashing any Yank (like me) who has spent any amount of time in GB.

    As for our current POTUS, it’s rather odd and ironic isn’t it — our Presidents who were the most devoted and loyal to GB — regular Anglophiles they were — Reagan and GW Bush……those “Cowboys” were the most reviled and despised presidents among your media and populace over the past 30 years. Gosh, didn’t about a good 1/3 of your populace consider Tony Blair to virtually be a “war criminal” and not merely misguided for supporting Bush? Meanwhile, the President who has treated GB worse than any President in my lifetime; time after time showing horrific and dismissive disrespect — oh HE is the one who fawned over, feted, and beloved — as the Nov elections roll around, who is going to be getting trashed in GB…….hmm….MY money is on Romney. How about you?

    “What do you want , permanent good mouth on your media screens to help you feelgood, or genuine fighting military support?” I don’t need ANY “good mouth” on my media screens to feel good, let alone “permanant.” Although a little less of the “permanant” BAD mouthing, might be a nice change of pace. And I don’t think either of our countries’ soldiers should be still be in Afgh. Oh, except for Captain Harry Wales. Soldiering seems to be the best way to keep him away from booze and party girls.

  • Al Bergstrazer

    I concur. My years in the service exposed me to more than one flavor of terrorist yet their profile is very similar. Their geopolitics are simply ways to excuse their bigotry and bloodshed, which is to say they are canards intended for the ears of western elites. When I was stationed in Germany there were plenty of Americans who were sympathetic with the East German Marxist groups who were bombing our installations and kidnapping our officers. We were told that we were the agressive oppressors and they were pushing back against us. Now that the cold war is over, the iron curtain is a museum piece and Germany is united the same and similar elites talk as if winning the cold war were their idea and have now moved on to sympathy for the Islamists and their demands. The difference is that Communism was an ideology that had as one of its tenets global domination, and the Islamists… well they only want peaceful co-existence. No, its the same ideology, but instead of being under the umbrella of Marxist/Leninist teaching it is under the the big tent of the teachings of Muhammed. America indeed is vulnerable to the three step approach of Islam, in which is similar to the approaches that Ho Chi Minh took in Vietnam, which is to wear the west down, turn public opinion and simply make a continued concerted stand against communism unpopular. This is an ideological conflict, and at this point most in the decadent west aren’t interested in ideology, unless it is about reproductive rights or gay marriage. The church is indeed the foundation and the beacon for our culture.

  • Ted Seeber

    Ok, I’ve read far enough.

    The US in particular? Not of you *actually* pay attention to what is going on. We’re just a convenient scapegoat to deflect rage against; the real war is between the Muwahiddun and the older five pillar sects of Islam. They’re in the midst of a reformation every bit as bloody as the wars between Catholics and Protestants were. The fact that the United States is politically allied, and trading with, the Islamic version of the Catholics is just all the more reason for the Muwahiddun Protestants to attack us.

  • Paul Rodden

    ‘ “We’re an Empire now. and when we act we create our own reality. We’re history’s actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” … Truth for this generation of Republicans is not important if truth is understood as telling it like it is. The important thing is how they want things to be. And so when the Bush-Cheney administration debunks the science of global warming, and when it rewrites intelligence reports indicating that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and no links with al-Qaida, they are being entirely consistent: the truth is not ‘out there’ but rather it is being manufactured by public relations blitzes, political spin, the military, and corporations like Halliburton.”
    Michael Northcote quoting one of Bush’s aides, in an article, ‘The Triumph of Imperial Politics’, The Tablet, 6 November 2004

  • pam

    Are you sure you are commenting on the right thread?

  • mike cliffson

    “knock GB”?
    Actually, I meant I wouldn’t apologize for the permanent trendies in the UK who are utterly antibritish, anticatholic, and antlife, who dominate the media , universiteis etcm, and public discourse,and who have generally grown more fundamentally Antiamerican over recent years which I suspect is all that is reported of them stateside, as against you feeling any need to apologize for American liberals, very much socially ditto, who knock America, and are generaly antibrit with it.
    Obviously, this is VERY broad brushstroke.
    But think of the late Mr Ed Kennedy.Do I need to spell him out or do you know? Abortion etc, chappaquiddick, traitorous betrayal of his own country to the Sovs under Reagan , And a support for IRA terrorism which still leaves me with reservations about blanket proAmericanism,,,
    Issue by issue it can get complicated.I dislike halloween , which is a recent intro to the Uk and Spain,. and Ive met Americans who take that as code for supporting Al Quaida, so to speak.
    Maggie Thatcher was one of a Kind with Reagan. To believe the media, etc she was universally hated in britain, which is why she won elections until her own party stabbed her in the back. I’m sorry you should have felt exposed to hate in the Uk – I ve been stateside but the once, and found the exact equivalent unnerving.
    I ‘ve felt embarrassed in Spain when my students, at least politely, practicing English, trot out the standard antiamerican stereotype they get spoonfed to visting Americans – only to find said Americans agreeing with every word and moreso, because it’s what they’ve been spoonfed too!
    Everybody’s prejudices happily reinforced.
    I happen to believe it’s a dangerous perversion of truth.
    I ve neither vote nor money to put into your elections, but surely little catholic discernment is needed on life issues alone, but to tell you the truth i’m aggrevieved with the American media, the American system, and gullible American voters, for not selecting Sarah Palin. She doesn’t beleive in the rape exception for abortion, and I like everything else about her, not leats how the trendies and liberls harte her like they hated maggie Thatcher (who was sadly NOT prolife,) and only wish she was in the catholic church as I understand she was baptized into.
    Sue me!

    God bless

  • http://reluctantliberal.wordpress.com Reluctant Liberal

    I feel the need to point out that either you’re operating under a “once Christian, always Christian” paradigm, or the Holy Land belongs to Baalites and Molochites. Prior historical presence is a pretty meaningless paradigm for assigning ownership.

  • Abdullah Bedouine

    Exactly! I agree! Christianity exists much longer than Islam and the Muslims were the ones who invaded Europe and t9day’s immigration-invasion is worse than ever, because it is “peaceful”.

  • anonymous

    please, don’t be so jealous…it’s the most weakest weakness you can have…