Syria: Let's you and him fight

Why is it that Arab states that don't like Syria and some of its actions want others to resolve the problem?  See "Arab League Endorses International Action", David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times, 2013-09-01?

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are far stronger militarily than Syria.  Could it be that they don't want to be seen as Arab against Arab?  Turkey is also stronger militarily than Syria.  Could it be that Turkey doesn't want to be seen as Muslim against Muslim?  Or would they rather have a Western power deal with Syria so that if things go wrong then they can blame the outsider?

The U.S. has provided billions of dollars in military sales or aid to several military powers in the Middle East, including "the latest air-to-air missiles and precision-guided air-to-ground missiles" - "U.S. Militarization of the Middle East", Seema Luthra, Fellowship of Reconcilation.  If Saudi Arabia is so concerned about Syria, couldn't it take out whatever targets in Syria that it chooses?  After all, Saudi Arabia's military budget is about 20 times that of Syria.

The attitude of too many in the U.S., that we are a super-power that can police the world, has gotten out of hand.  Too many people believe that we can solve their problems and we are too willing to appear that we can.

George Washington warned us over two hundred years ago: "The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest." - Farewell Address

Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and violence

"But we must ask a question only Muslims can answer: What is going on in your community that a critical number of your youth believes that every American military action in the Middle East is intolerable and justifies a violent response, and everything Muslim extremists do to other Muslims is ignorable and calls for mostly silence?"
- Thomas Friedman, "Judgment not included", New York Times, 2013-04-27

But violence against others is not a Muslim "franchise".  People of all kinds of religious persuasions have turned to violence to promote certain distorted ends.

Christians practiced violence.  The Roman Catholic Church burned people at the stake for supposedly not conforming to the prescribed beliefs.  Torquemada of Spain had many torture devices to get people to admit to being Jewish.  Hitler was never ex-communicated from the Catholic Church.  Catholic Irish who planted bombs were considered heroes by many.  Michael Servetus was "burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council."

Jews have been killing more Arabs than Arabs have been killing Jews: since 2000,  6617 Palestinians vs 1,097 Israelis (including 1,447 vs 129 children).  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict#Cost_of_conflict

Buddhists, supposedly a peaceful group, are attacking Muslims in Burma (Myanmar).  The recent riots of Buddhists against Muslims is only a part of centuries-long list of anti-Muslim events.

And all these perpetrators of violence seem to forget that a tenet of their religions is "to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

O ye of little faith!

Someone in the U.S. posted a video uncomplimentary of Mohammed.  Some Muslims in Libya attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of the U.S. Ambassador and three other U.S. diplomats.  Now demonstrations and attacks by some Muslims on American interests are happening all around the world where there are a large number of Muslims.  Is this the way to promote Islam as a religion of peace?

The idea of Islam as a religion of peace is something that many American Muslims believe and need in order to be part of their communities.  Unfortunately, attacks like those above work against American Muslims.  Why?  Because there are too many non-Muslim Americans who believe that ALL Muslims are terrorists.  Consider the uproar being made by Rep. Michele Bachmann about U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton having a Muslim aide, Huma Abedin.

When I was a kid a counter to those who called others by derogatory names was "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names cannot hurt me!"  Some Muslims are letting derogatory names hurt them and are breaking other people's bones.

"Allah akbar!  God is great!" shout those demonstrating against the uncomplimentary video.  Do you think a great God would worry about the callous remarks of a petty criminal?  If a great God were concerned with such remarks, wouldn't He do something about it?  If God is not doing anything about some stupid remarks, should you?  There is an old Greek word for the sin of knowing better than the gods - hubris, a form of misplaced pride and conceit.

Before some non-Muslims have their own bit of hubris and conceit about their own religion's tolerance, consider some Christian history.  Early Christian leaders had some really heated debates about what Christianity should be, and many of them branded those who disagreed with them as heretics.  For too many years, the Roman Church with the blessing of monarchs tortured and executed those who they suspected of not being devout Christians.  The Puritans in Massachusetts hung Quakers for preaching in public.  The Ku Klux Klan used the symbols of Christianity and terrorized and murdered blacks for a long list of crimes real and imagined.

The world is getting smaller and more crowded.  If we can't learn to have some tolerance for each other, no god is going to save us from destroying ourselves.

For a good analysis of the larger picture of the long-standing conflict, see "A Dangerous Misperception and Cultural Divide", Alon Ben-Meir, Huffington Post, 2012-09-17.

Important ally in the fight against terrorism?

The above phrase is used over and over again in many stories about the popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East.  But how important were these so-called allies?

The U.S. and other countries aligned themselves with dictators in the fight against Communism.  For many people in these countries the result was often worse than a Communist takeover.  "When will they ever learn" is still a valid question in the "fight against terrorism".  Instead of squelching terrorism, the fight increases terrorism, often state terrorism against the people of the countries who are "important allies in the fight against terrorism."

See "It's Arab and it's personal", Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera English, 2011-04-12.

A prime example of the stupidity of war

You won't get through this with dry eyes: "A Mideast Bond, Stitched of Pain and Healing", Ethan Bronner, New York Times, 2009-12-30.

If you consider your course just, will your means be wise?

"When you once describe a venture as a holy war you surrender all capacity to judge honest alternatives." - Jamail Tabari, Arab archaeologist, character in "The Source" by James Michener. This was published in 1965.

Tabari was describing the blunder of the Crusaders assuming that Arabs were part of the "enemy". The Arabs wanted to form an alliance with the Crusaders against the Turks. The Crusaders saw the Arab clothes and slaughtered the "enemy", even those who were Christian.

I also thought of "When will they ever learn" as the title of this blog entry.

Bush invades Afghanistan without many Pashto-speaking troops and Iraq without many Arabic-speaking troops. Did he really understand what people on the ground really wanted? He thought of himself as a liberator; they thought of him as an invader.

Jihadists wage war against those wherever who don't agree with them. Are they any different than the Crusaders massacring Arab Christians? Or George Bush invading countries he doesn't understand.

Where are the Crusaders? Where are the Mamalukes? Where will the Jihadists be in one hundred years? Where will the United States be in one hundred years? I don't think either will achieve its supposed goals by then. And each will be replaced by other antagonists on their own "holy wars".

When will they ever learn?