Mahathir: War is anti-Muslim...

[Maharlika]

...not against Iraq. (... - Mah)
Kuala Lumpur, AFP


Western nations are targeting Muslims rather than weapons of mass destruction in their drive towards war against Iraq, Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday.

The incoming chairman of the 114-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which holds a summit today (24 Feb), cited the West's differing treatment of North Korea and Iraq as proof.

"The fact that North Korea's open admission that it has weapons of mass destruction has met only with mild admonishment by the West seems to prove that indeed it is against Muslims and not against the fear of the possession of weapons of mass destruction by the so-called rogue states," Dr. Mahathir told a business forum.
[snip]

Although, I do agree with the PM when he cited the West's double standards as Pyongyang is seemingly ignored, I wholeheartedly disagree that the West's (US and UK) drive against Iraq is actually against Muslims.

IMO, it's all about oil. I mean, what's so interesting about N.Korea? What do they have aplenty that the Westen states have a dire need of?

Personally, such statements from a moderate Muslim leader like him would only fan the flames of global terrorism and anger more Muslims who are likely to view the strike as against their religion rather than terrorism.

I would have wanted to tell him to think carefully of what he's saying... I mean, assuming the PM is right what do these Western states get from picking on Muslims? What would be their logical motive?

Yeah, if I had the chance I would have wanted to ask him just that: If what he is saying is true, the question is why pick on the Muslims? What for?

[Tamerlane]

I have a very low opinion of Mahathir, he's become very eccentric these last couple of years. I just can't take the guy seriously anymore. One great example, was when tried to redicule Australians by putting on the most horrible accent you'd ever hear. Hell, I couldn't help but laugh although I figured he originally intended to offend us as a collective nation. Other things he's done in the past, was to ask all Australian muslims to leave as Australia in his view was unsafe for followers of Islam.

@Mah, he's just an attention seeker who thrives from his time in the spotlight, but with Indonesia and to a lesser extent Philippines gaining attention of the US in the South-East Asian region, he's doing all he can to become top dog again if you will

[CM]

Mahatir is right on the money on this one. Not a single Muslim thinks this war is for oil. Point will be proven when Bush goes after Iran leaving NK alone.

[Maharlika]

Quote:

Originally posted by CM Mahatir is right on the money on this one. Not a single Muslim thinks this war is for oil. Point will be proven when Bush goes after Iran leaving NK alone.

...why the Muslims? What do Muslims think that they have that the Western states would want them down real bad? Is it religious? Is this really about Islam? Why pick on your people? I really do not understand...

[CM]

I dont hold the monopoly on any view point. Below are my personal views and i apologise before hand if anybody is offended by them. Mainly me and my friends believe is Paranoia, but there is a deep belief in all Islamic societies that we are seen as a threat to the "western world". This stands from my friends in the US to Indonesia. Just take a look at the conflicts in the world that are the bloodiest and that the world has done nothing about.

1. Kashmir - 55 years now and on going.
2. Palestine - The same
3. Chechnya - pretty much the same
4. Algeria - the only place where the EU and US accept a brutal military dictatorship that is responsible for rigged elections, overthrowing a legit popular govt and genocide. Its all ok because the people that won and were overthrown were the GIA - an Islamic group (Supposedly linked to Al-Qaeda now).
5. Iraq - 10 years but now all of a sudden people care about Saddam.

50 years nothing has been done. 1970's you had the oil crisis, US is never gonna allow that to happen again. How many gross Human rights violations take place in Pro-US muslim countries, yet Pakistan is beat up on, or Malaysia or Indonesia when some one like the Wallstreet Journalist guy goes missing or whatever. Dont get me started on that, the guy was no journalist. Yesterday i believe a Brit was killed in Saudi, i havent heard any public out cry from the brits.

I said earlier that i would not comment on Politics and this is getting pretty much there. So i will stop here before i continue

[Lazarus]

I'm pretty much against this war, but I think it is simplifying the matter to say that there is such a double-standard between NK and Iraq. If it were simply a matter of the legitimacy of the regime, NK would be just as "evil" as Iraq, and should be dealt with accordingly. But there is a very practical side to the issue as well, and that is: we can whomp on Iraq's butt with impunity (at least, at first - what happens after is another matter).

But if we go after NK, thousands or hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians will be killed, because NK would level Seoul with artillery. Now, that's even if you don't believe NK has nuclear capability. Personally, I think they do, and I think the White House thinks so, too, and that is why they are backing off NK. If anything, this is only an argument in favor of dealing with Iraq: because an attack on Iraq now is an attempt to prevent them from acquiring these weapons, and making any further action against them unthinkable.

As for what this Mahathir says, well, why not stir up a bit of anti-American sentiment with rhetoric like this? - it's probably good politics right now. Probably makes him pretty popular with the NAM. Sad, but true.

[Waverly]

CM,
With all due respect, the US is a secular nation with a large population of Islamic citizens. It would be well nigh impossible to target another nation simply because of its religion. What would be the goal? A new crusade? However misguided the current administration’s saber rattling, religious persecution is not the route cause.

This ‘attack on all Muslims’ philosophy is exceedingly dangerous. I don’t believe for a moment that half of these nations have any empathy for Iraq, nor do they feel threatened by the US. Some fundamentalists, I’m convinced, (and this isn’t restricted to any one religion) see a religious war as a positive thing, and would be quite happy to manufacture one and act out some sick helter-skelter fantasy.

As for your list, we can’t both demonize the US for intervening too often, then come up with a list where we would want to see them take more action:

1. Kashmir – Would you want intervention? What if it were decided that India was at least partially in the right here and some compromise was called for?
2. Palestine – Diplomatic solutions have been sought for decades. Would you be more comfortable if the US to practiced Israeli style fighting violence with violence?
3. Chechnya – Get a new history book, there was a relatively successful intervention.
4. Algeria – Is the US to topple all objectionable governments? It would seem there are limits to what can be done. I’m sure if that had been done, this would still be on your list with a decrying of the action.
5. Iraq – Iraq has seen constant diplomatic penalties for the past 12 years, and incidentally not a drop of Iraqi oil is being consumed by the US. There’s an embargo in place.

It seems it's gotten to the point where any global conflict can be interpreted as a US failing. Attempt to talk with N. Korea, and we are going easy on them, take a military approach, and we are once again acting like a colonial power. I'm beginning to believe the rest of the world is just as misguided as Bush.

[Minerva]

Quote:

Originally posted by Waverly CM, With all due respect, the US is a secular nation with a large population of Islamic citizens. It would be well nigh impossible to target another nation simply because of its religion. What would be the goal? A new crusade? However misguided the current administration’s saber rattling, religious persecution is not the route cause.

Unfortunately, the Crusade was the word Bush used at the very beginning of this "War against Terrorism". It is easy to forget for us, but not for the one who's standing on the target line, I think.

[Waverly]

The usage of the word was simple stupidity, not indication of a desire to rid the holy land of infidels. Iraq isn't even the holy land, though I suppose Bush might be just as adept at geography as he is at global politics.

[Minerva]

Quote:

Originally posted by Waverly The usage of the word was simple stupidity, not indication of a desire to rid the holy land of infidels. Iraq isn't even the holy land, though I suppose Bush might be just as adept at geography as he is at global politics.

I do accept that was simple ignorance of him, but the fact he used it in front of media, declaring the Crusade, is not "just another gaff". What his aids/advisors were doing to let him make that speech, that's what I wanted to know...

[Der-draigen]

This might be chalked up to paranoia on my part, but here's my take:

The US government is full of evangelical, right-wing Christian fundamentalists. This is a fact. The President himself is one, and they also make up a good percentage of both houses of Congress. Recently I heard some random commentator say, "There are fundamentalists in the White House, and that scares me just as much as fundamentalists in Afghanistan." This comment intrigued me, as it reflected an idea I already had; but the show was out of time and he was not able to elaborate.

I have seen videotape of so-called "Christian" groups in Jerusalem being led in "prayer" by their spiritual leaders "binding the spirit of Islam in the name of Jesus."

Basically, I do believe that there is strong and powerful anti-Islamic sentiment in the US government; and of course money is always an issue. So I think there are two causes to this current crisis: The US government wants oil; and the US fundies want to smash the Muslims. Then the Jerusalem Temple can be rebuilt, hastening the rapture, Armageddon, and the return of Christ.

It sickens and terrifies me to know that we actually have leaders like this.

Before I get slammed for this post, I think I should say that I myself am a Christian. I just try to see the difference between those who genuinely try to follow Christ and those who use His name in order to promote themselves.

[CM]

Honestly I dont know i even bothered to reply to this thread. It causes more problems than helps. A quick summary of what I would like to see happen.

1. Kashmir - All 3 UNSC resolutions - which are legally binding - are implemented. In other words let the Kashmiri people vote decide. We will get kashmir that way no doubt about. Why do you think India has never implemented them?

2. I rather see UNSC resolutions implemented there, where the West Bank including Jersulem and The Gaza strip and Golan Heights are returned to the respective countries and then the issue of Palestine is resolved. International law does not allow victors of wars to keep the land. You conquer another nations territory upon peace the land has to be returned. Happened with the Pak India wars. Happened in African wars. It is International Law. Israel is not compling with International law and UNSC resolutiuons.

3. The Soviets have repressed that region for nearly 2 centuries. They never had control of it in the first place. Self-Determination is an accepted principle under the UN Charter which is a legal document. Resistance is also acceptable. Look at the work Mary Robinson as the Human Rights High Commissioner, the Russian authorities hated her guts for her vocal statements against Russian violations. HRW and AI have documented cases of Russian human rigts violations against Innocent men women and children.

4. Waverly assuming things is not good. Even though i dont discuss politics at all, i am very much in favor of getting rid of Saddam. Have been, am now and always will be. He doesnt deserve to live. Kill him. Just dont bomb the hell out of the innocent people. Get rid of the Military govt in Algeria. Its better than providing them with weaponry, like the US has done the past.

5. Explain this to me. An embargo is in place on oil, yet the only way the Iraqi govt can earn money for food etc is through the oil for food program. Please explain the logic in that to me. So who gets the money from the oil for food program? The Iraqi govt. Now why would you be paying the iraqi govt money, if the US cribs that they spend it all on weaponry?

Now with regard to the statement that half of the muslim countries dont feel threatened. Then tell why 200 billion dollars of Saudi money as invest fled the US 7 months after sept 11th? The article and discussion is covered by the BBC website in detail. Or the fact that more money from the Islamic world is being invested in Europe where the chances of profit are far less? Why is it that every country caved into the you are with us or against us? What happened to good old neutrality?

[fable]

I strongly suspect that the question of whether US foreign policy is inherently anti-Muslim can be argued back and forth without any resolution for many years to come. More to the point, it is perceived as anti-Muslim by much of the Muslim world, and it's this peception that any reasonable US government would want to deal with.

Unfortunately, the US government is locked into a means of dealing with the MidEast that automatically ties its destiny to that of Israeli governments. Jewish citizens make up a very large voting block in the US. Those votes influence a huge range of issues. Even if the votes were ignored, there remains a mythical image of Israel as the underdog, the champions of freedom and democracy in an evil region filled with people who would just like to drag it under. And to the credit of their stupidity, several Arab states confirmed this when they attempted to destroy the Israeli state during the Seven Days War. That only renewed the Amerian perception of what Israel and its neighbors were.

If the Ameican Congress based its membership on the support each party received nationally, rather than the local popularity of individual politicians, the legislative branch would be more of a forum for ideas. As it is, however, each senator and representative must play up to local ideas. The result is a government chained to this illusion of the MidEast.

So what will happen shortly? Dubya is going to invade Iraq to find a cheap source of fossil fuels, which he believes will guarantee the only energy supply that's feasible to his nation. That will in turn provide another kind of fuel, a fuel to the perception that the US is once again picking on Muslims and/or Arabs, probably in covert agreement with Israel. I don't believe this is true, but my opinion is of little consequence. The invasion will occur, recruiting a host of terrorists eager to visit the pain they feel upon the US, which in turn make Dubya more popular as he drives forward his "War on Terrorism." And moderating voices that point to US policy as the source of increasing terrorism will be threatened, and driven underground.

[CM]

I guess the Israeli govt agrees with my assessment. http://www.iht.com/articles/87780.html

Iran is next and Pakistan comes afterwards due to military training and a nuke in our hands is not a good idea. Saudi comes afterwards along the way sometime.

[Scayde]

Quote:

Originally by fable Unfortunately, the US government is locked into a means of dealing with the MidEast that automatically ties its destiny to that of Israeli governments. Jewish citizens make up a very large voting block in the US. Those votes influence a huge range of issues. Even if the votes were ignored, there remains a mythical image of Israel as the underdog, the champions of freedom and democracy in an evil region filled with people who would just like to drag it under. And to the credit of their stupidity, several Arab states confirmed this when they attempted to destroy the Israeli state during the Seven Days War. That only renewed the Amerian perception of what Israel and its neighbors were.

fable....what you say is very insightful. I must admit..<drum roll please> I no longer hold the unswerving support of GB in this matter, largely do to your input.</ end drum roll>But how do we support Isreal..which I personally believe we should do, with out incurring the ire of their Muslim neighbors ?