Wed, September 19, 2012
World > Americas > Surge of Islamic protests against U.S.

Shouldn't U.S. reflect on Islamist attacks?

2012-09-19 02:00:04 GMT2012-09-19 10:00:04(Beijing Time)  SINA.com

The reaction in the United States to the wave of anti-American protests in the Middle East has been anything but self-critical. One of the two most widespread explanations for what happened is that the U.S. did everything right supporting the Arab Spring, but “counterrevolutionary elements,” still active in Libya or Egypt (countries where protests were most violent), are resisting “change.”

The other explanation is that president Obama has been doing “too little too late” supporting the de facto Islamist revolutions and should undo this fault of his by giving even more military assistance to the Syrian rebels. (This view is represented by several conservative columnists in the Washington Post and the New York Times.) And, of course, there is no talk about listening to Russia’s view on the matter, which continues to be dismissed as “outdated” or “reactionary.”

Meanwhile, both aforementioned explanations do not hold water. If the attacks were organized by the “enemies of revolutions” or by a “small terrorist group with links to al-Qaeda” (Hillary Clinton’s version of events in the first hours after the attack that killed the American ambassador in Tripoli), then why were the protests so strong and violent, literally enflaming the area from Morocco to Pakistan?

And why did the “revolutionary” governments turn a blind eye to them? It is known that the US is particularly angry at the passivity of the newly elected Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi. But how can one expect people brought to power by Islamist revolutions quell an Islamist protest? And the truth is that the Arab Spring’s revolutions were primarily Islamist - democratic slogans were a “byproduct” of Islamists’ aspirations. This is what Russian representatives have been saying all along - to no avail.

The second view, calling on Obama to be even more “proactive” in his support for Syrian rebels, achieving a spectacular military victory instead of “leading from behind,” as it was the case in Libya, is even more absurd. Being more active in bringing to power - whom? The same Islamist militias which are now in fact ruling Syria?

More questions are popping up here: Shouldn’t the doctor cure himself first? And isn’t it the time for Americans to recalibrate its focus- for once in recent history?

Related news:

Video shows US ambassador to Libya died of suffocation

Obama calls on Muslim countries to protect US diplomats

Bangladesh blocks YouTube over anti-Islamic video

40 Afghan policemen injured in anti-Islam film protest activities

More than 1,000 protest anti-Islam film in Kabul

Pakistanis rally against anti-Islam movie

Bloodshed all by a film?

Anti-Islam Film Protesters storm U.S. Embassy in Yemen

Anti-Islam filmmaker in hiding after protests

| PRINT | RSS

Add Your Comments:

Your Name:
Your Country:
Comment:
(English Only)
 
Please read our Terms of Service. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten others; have obscene or otherwise objectionable content; have spam, commercial or advertising content or links may be removed.

You might also be interested in:

SPECIAL COVERAGE

MOST VIEWED

LATEST VIDEO

PICTURE GALLERY