To me, it was a shock to find out that the world’s greatest power is helping this to happen. The American government is not obviously not doing this intentionaly; however, with the recent wars and continued support of Israel, the uprising of Muslims is now un-avoidable. When 9/11 happened, we went after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan; we bombed and bombed till the entire Afganistani regime, the Taliban, was annihiliated from power. And now currently the war in Iraq, which was a mistake from President Bush, is showing how the Muslims are rising; the Muslims of Iraq are working together to kill US soldiers.
A person with little knowledge about the Muslims can figure out what is going on. America’s continued war with the world’s Muslims is forcing them to set aside their differences and unite more and more as the months pass.
Muslim population in the world is rising tremendously. According to recent statistics, in about 5-10 years from 2006, Europe’s population will be 60% Muslims. In America and in the rest of the world, the religion of Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
![]() |
We Americans are continuously supporting the corrupt and murderous Muslim leaders and supressing the development of the Muslim countries, and the Muslim masses in those Muslim countries have no where to turn to other than to rougue Muslim militants. Some of these Muslim militants have networks with other militants in other Muslim countries and leading to Muslim unity. Some of these militants go overboard and disregard their religion of Islam and start commiting acts of terrorism.
Iran, a dangerous enemy to America, has about 11 million militia soldiers under the command of the Ayatollah and there are about 600,000 soldiers that are currently active. The American government is threating and planning to invade Iran, which I think is a VERY bad idea as an average American. Another war in the middle-east, especially with these leathal Persians, may affect our economy negatively, our reputaion to the world as the leader of the free world, and our unity as Americans.
The war in the Middle-East is rising and we need to do whatever we can to keep it from spreading to other parts of the world.
My advice is to continuously protests to the White House and Congress to change US foreign policy. Also, vote for the political party that does not support going to another war for the upcoming 2007 elections.
|
5 Responses
Sam
October 6th, 2006 at 3:36 am
Yes i agree with you, Americas foreign policy has gone gone. He should have run it right.
http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A212719
OCTOBER 4, 2006
Bush Gets One Right
Pakistan targeted by U.S. bluster bombs
BY TED RALL
Mail Article
Print Article
ALSO IN TED RALL
Boys Gone Wild
States Mights
BUSH’S WAR ON HISTORY
More (108)…
ALSO IN OPINION
Tamaheck
I’m So Vain
October 4 — October 10
More (398)…NEW YORK–Give George W. Bush some credit. True, it’s for the wrong reasons and it’s half a decade late, but he’s finally going after one of the nations behind 9/11. Well, not exactly. He’s just gently razzing its ruler. Still: you razz, boy!
After five years of war against countries that didn’t threaten us, the United States has finally moved the government of Pakistan from the “valuable ally in the war on terrorists” column to one labeled more succinctly, and more accurately: “terrorists.”
“Absolutely,” Bush replied when a reporter asked him whether he would order a U.S. incursion into Pakistan if he learned that Osama bin Laden or other al-Qaeda leaders were there. “We would take the action necessary to bring them to justice,” the president said.
Like so much of what Bush says, it wasn’t absolutely true. Bin Laden was in Pakistan on 9/11, apparently receiving treatment for his bum kidneys as an honored guest of the Pakistani military government. By all accounts, he’s been there ever since. Yet Bush hasn’t lifted a finger to nail him.
Bush knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan during the first six months after 9/11, when the U.S. dropped 24,000 bombs and 248,000 cluster “bomblets” on Afghanistan, blowing more than 20,000 innocent Afghans to bits. He has since sent thousands of U.S. troops, Allied soldiers and private mercenaries, and at least 100,000 civilians, to sandy graves in Iraq–knowing that bin Laden was in Pakistan the whole time.
But hey, better late than never.
Phone lines and e-mail accounts belonging to Central and South Asia policy geeks hummed during the hours and days after 9/11. “Any sane person views 9/11 as a law enforcement matter,” a leading expert on Pakistan and Afghanistan told me at the time. “But if the U.S. chooses the path of military action, there’s only one logical country to attack: Pakistan.”
That’s where my money was. After all, 9/11 was a three-way joint venture among Egypt, which supplied the hijackers, Saudi Arabia, which financed their training, and Pakistan, which hosted al-Qaeda and its affiliated madrassas and jihadi training camps. There was no need to invade Egypt because, as the second luckiest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Israel, its economy and dictatorial regime were totally dependent on us. Why buy when you can rent for less? A similar argument could be made, and I was sure was being made, for taking out Saudi Arabia’s corrupt royal family–who would vanish in a quick, bloody implosion were we to stop propping it up with fancy military hardware.
Pakistan, on the other hand, was a clear and present danger to regional and global stability, and thus, U.S. business, and thus, U.S. interests. In the fall of 1999, a pro-Islamist general, Pervez Musharraf, had formed an alliance with militant jihadis to stage a coup d’état against his democratically elected predecessor. He had invited the Taliban, the Pakistani-financed rulers of neighboring Afghanistan, into Pakistan to fight India over disputed Kashmir province. Musharraf’s Pakistan had the ultimate WMD, nukes–and was threatening to use them against India.
Although al-Qaeda’s operations were based in Pakistan, the group also maintained some camps and personnel in southern Afghanistan. But they relied on financing and training from Pakistan’s equivalent of the CIA, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Invade Pakistan and you’d get Afghanistan for free.
If you’d already decided to go berzerker military in reaction to 9/11, attacking Pakistan made sense. In one fell swoop, occupying Pakistan would neutralize the world’s most dangerous nuclear power, deprive China of its important strategic partner and gateway into South Asia, and eliminate the region’s primary exporter of jihadis. Best of all, deposing the leader of an unconstitutional junta might help spread democracy–provided that we then restored deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who was rotting in one of Musharraf’s squalid prisons.
Similar thoughts were rattling around the Bushies’ brains after 9/11. General Musharraf recently revealed that he got a “very rude” call from Richard Armitage, Bush’s deputy secretary of state at the time and a fiery neoconservative. “Be prepared to be bombed,” Musharraf quotes Armitage. “Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.”
Armitage and the White House deny Musharraf’s story, but get real. It sure sounds like something a Bushie might have said, especially just 10 days after 9/11. If you have to choose whom to believe–a high-ranking official in the Bush Administration who participated in the treasonous unmasking of a CIA agent and kept quiet about it for years, or the military dictator of Pakistan–you’ve got to go with the dictator.
Musharraf says he had no choice but to cave in to U.S. demands for official cooperation and his country’s diplomatic distancing from the Taliban. “One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation,” he commented mournfully.
The high-handed and oafish way that Armitage talked to the leader of another nation, emboldened by the certitude of the mighty over the weak, is almost enough to make one feel sorry for Musharraf. Fortunately for the tin-pot general, his new American overlords didn’t ask a whole lot of him.
Bush demanded that Musharraf end “direct logistical support” for bin Laden, not that he be turned over. Rather than a full-fledged military base, he obtained the right to fly planes and missiles across Pakistani airspace into Afghanistan. Musharraf refused outright Bush’s request for government censorship of the Pakistani press. “If somebody’s expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views,” he said.
It’s nice to know the First Amendment lives on, albeit nine time zones away in a dictatorship.
Why didn’t Bush go after Pakistan? Only the Bushies know for sure, and they’re not telling, and no one should believe them if they break their silence. One possibility is that the State Department, still addicted to its Cold War policy of playing off regional powers against one another in order to maximize America’s economic and military influence, believed it more important to use Pakistan as a strategic counterweight against a modernizing and ascendant India than to avenge 9/11 or prevent another attack.
There may also have been a desire to placate Pakistan’s ally China, which can veto U.S. initiatives in the U.S. Security Council. And Musharraf was a darling of the globalizing financiers of the International Monetary Fund. One of his first moves after seizing power was to cancel anti-poverty programs launched by the former democratic government. Businessmen prefer tyranny.
Former Ambassador Peter Thomsen, special envoy to Afghanistan during the first Bush Administration, says that Pakistan is “playing fireman and arsonist as it tries to have it both ways in Afghanistan [where continues to finance and arm Taliban forces in their war against the U.S. puppet government] and in the war on terror. The Pakistani military intelligence and the generals know exactly where he (bin Laden) is and they could inform us and we could do the job.”
Nevertheless, Musharraf continues to deny the obvious. “Where’s Osama bin Laden?” Jon Stewart asked him. “I don’t know,” replied the dictator. “You know where he is? You lead on, we’ll follow you.”
The more the “war on terror” changes, the more it stays the same.
Hasan
October 6th, 2006 at 10:55 am
That’s interesting. I wonder how long this growing unity will continue. As for Europe being 60% Muslim in a few years, you might wanna check up on that. Europe is only about 4% Muslim right now. There’s no way the percentage will be that high in such a short amount of time.
Carnival Of Islam In The West - Ramadan Edition « Eteraz
October 14th, 2006 at 7:38 am
[…] 8. American Desi notes that America is helping the rise of the Islamic State (via, what else, foreign policy decisions). […]
nomdeplume
October 16th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Yes I was wondering about that figure for Europe. Any citation?
Those are the kind of statistics that create fear and hysteria in xenophobic bigots.
So I would think it wise to check and revise, if necessary.
nomdeplume
October 16th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Very interesting blog piece BTW. Thinking back just a relatively short time ago, Islam was an invisibility to the West and the average American’s life. I think Bush’s policies have empowered a certain growing portion of the international Muslim community, and I agree with the points the blogger makes as to some remedies. But I also see Islam as very splintered world-wide, Muslim against Muslim.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
Great Links
Categories
Archives
Top Commentators
About Me
Subscribe
Calendar
Recent Readers
Great Posts
How to Make Money with Low Blog Traffic, No BSHow to Make Money from YouTube
Indian Guy Gets Caught Cheating on His Wife on the Radio
2x, 3x, or Even 4x your AdSense Earnings, Guaranteed!
Start Getting LinkBacks Effectively, No BS
Recent Entries
Recent Comments
Most Commented
Blogging with Desi Baba is proudly powered by WordPress - BloggingPro theme by: Design Disease
Rice Bowl Journals Best of Indya