Hello. I can not answer this question generally only from my point of view.
Al-Qaeda bombed in New York, London, Madrid.
On 9.11. there were big protests all over world including Muslim world. Even in Teheran. I only mention Teheran especially as a contrast to todays political pressures.
Something like 9.11. hoply won't happen again. But if it would happen again I doubt that people in Teheran would go onto streets to protest these new terrorist attacks in USA.
Times change. US image in the world is at a low. This is only the current situation without any assesment which lead to this point.
In the muslim world USA has only friends in sponsored and backed "regimes" and in some intellectuals. I exclude here Turkey as i think these problems are more with security-politics and not based on religion. To Iraqi Kurds from US-image point: They are only a grain of sand to the dimension this problem stretches (Atlas mountains to Sumatra). And Iraqi Kurds did anyway had their "authonomy region" by 36 degree established in 1991.
Now most intellectuals in Muslim world distance theirself from USA, too. The normal people on the streets have to this point made their mind about USA. Trends to result in Negative feelings. This was not always so and sending Karen Hughes around muslim world for marketing US image is prejudiced to fail and it actually did fail.
I know meanwhile that this forum is a republican forum but i don't care. Remembering this is only of value in my following Bill Clinton sentences.
This Bill Clinton-George Bush thing is inner-american. For outer world, especially the region where our interest lies in it doesnt matter if Bush is Democrat or Republican. It is cosmetics as presidents from both camps follow an pre-defined agenda which will be there in this office even when the individualist is in pension in reliance to foreign politics.
So my metioning of Bill Clinton is to his time of being president in pre 11.9. era. When he visited Muslim countries or even European countries there were no protests against him.
Even more in past, for example when Eisenhower was in Ankara the street his presidency car drive along was covered with roses thrown by locals to his car.
In todays world this is not realistic anymore with president Bush. But also not realistic anymore with Clinton (Gore) would he have been in "White house" in past 9.11. era and things went the same as with president Bush. And it is likely things went almost the same with Clinton beacuse of the agenda which comes with being president and representing USA.
This is no thing of preference to one president and dislike to the other president, but it is sign of general trend for the country this president reprensents.
So, in New York attacks there were protests in Muslim world against Al-Qaeda.
In Madrid bombings and London bombings there were no protests.
Does this mean average Muslim does sympathize with these attacks?
When we look superficial to this question we might answer it with a strong YES.
BUT, Al-Qaeda bombed in Istanbul, Jerba, Bali and other musim countries too many times since 9.11..
Did muslims go onto streets when Al-Qaeda targeted Muslim countries? NO.
Does this mean Muslims sympathize with Al-Qaeda bombing Muslim countries? NO.
Does this mean Muslims in Muslim countries dont protest when Al-Qaeda bombs in Western world that they sympathize with them? NO.
But of course there are people who sympathize with Al-Qaeda whether they bomb Western countries or even Muslim countries. And there is nothing to euphemise about this sympathy, but
1. not seeing protests does not mean you see the right picture.
2. seeing concentrated "hordes" of Muslims in carricature atmosphere far far away in TV does also not mean you see the right picture.
I personally decline expectation of going to streets protesting Al-Qaeda. Majority of people have nothinh to do with Al-Qaeda nor do they sympathize with them. I for myself see therefore no neccesity for going into streets to protest things i have no impact on.
It is not anymore about distancing from Al-Qaeda. It is a point reached where there is a prejudiced suspicion which will be there even when there are 10.000.000 Muslims on the street.
Then it will be called: "What? 10.000.000 is only X.XX % of muslims"...
But when you see concentrated pictures in TV with fanatic Extremists this 0.00XXX % of Muslims is being generalized as the common picture.
Al-Qaeda bombed in New York, London, Madrid.
On 9.11. there were big protests all over world including Muslim world. Even in Teheran. I only mention Teheran especially as a contrast to todays political pressures.
Something like 9.11. hoply won't happen again. But if it would happen again I doubt that people in Teheran would go onto streets to protest these new terrorist attacks in USA.
Times change. US image in the world is at a low. This is only the current situation without any assesment which lead to this point.
In the muslim world USA has only friends in sponsored and backed "regimes" and in some intellectuals. I exclude here Turkey as i think these problems are more with security-politics and not based on religion. To Iraqi Kurds from US-image point: They are only a grain of sand to the dimension this problem stretches (Atlas mountains to Sumatra). And Iraqi Kurds did anyway had their "authonomy region" by 36 degree established in 1991.
Now most intellectuals in Muslim world distance theirself from USA, too. The normal people on the streets have to this point made their mind about USA. Trends to result in Negative feelings. This was not always so and sending Karen Hughes around muslim world for marketing US image is prejudiced to fail and it actually did fail.
I know meanwhile that this forum is a republican forum but i don't care. Remembering this is only of value in my following Bill Clinton sentences.
This Bill Clinton-George Bush thing is inner-american. For outer world, especially the region where our interest lies in it doesnt matter if Bush is Democrat or Republican. It is cosmetics as presidents from both camps follow an pre-defined agenda which will be there in this office even when the individualist is in pension in reliance to foreign politics.
So my metioning of Bill Clinton is to his time of being president in pre 11.9. era. When he visited Muslim countries or even European countries there were no protests against him.
Even more in past, for example when Eisenhower was in Ankara the street his presidency car drive along was covered with roses thrown by locals to his car.
In todays world this is not realistic anymore with president Bush. But also not realistic anymore with Clinton (Gore) would he have been in "White house" in past 9.11. era and things went the same as with president Bush. And it is likely things went almost the same with Clinton beacuse of the agenda which comes with being president and representing USA.
This is no thing of preference to one president and dislike to the other president, but it is sign of general trend for the country this president reprensents.
So, in New York attacks there were protests in Muslim world against Al-Qaeda.
In Madrid bombings and London bombings there were no protests.
Does this mean average Muslim does sympathize with these attacks?
When we look superficial to this question we might answer it with a strong YES.
BUT, Al-Qaeda bombed in Istanbul, Jerba, Bali and other musim countries too many times since 9.11..
Did muslims go onto streets when Al-Qaeda targeted Muslim countries? NO.
Does this mean Muslims sympathize with Al-Qaeda bombing Muslim countries? NO.
Does this mean Muslims in Muslim countries dont protest when Al-Qaeda bombs in Western world that they sympathize with them? NO.
But of course there are people who sympathize with Al-Qaeda whether they bomb Western countries or even Muslim countries. And there is nothing to euphemise about this sympathy, but
1. not seeing protests does not mean you see the right picture.
2. seeing concentrated "hordes" of Muslims in carricature atmosphere far far away in TV does also not mean you see the right picture.
I personally decline expectation of going to streets protesting Al-Qaeda. Majority of people have nothinh to do with Al-Qaeda nor do they sympathize with them. I for myself see therefore no neccesity for going into streets to protest things i have no impact on.
It is not anymore about distancing from Al-Qaeda. It is a point reached where there is a prejudiced suspicion which will be there even when there are 10.000.000 Muslims on the street.
Then it will be called: "What? 10.000.000 is only X.XX % of muslims"...
But when you see concentrated pictures in TV with fanatic Extremists this 0.00XXX % of Muslims is being generalized as the common picture.
