Ragtime wrote:
Just a question based on the pattern of the history of the last decade. Seems many Americans responded with newfound love for those who killed us on 9/11, while remaining cold to our Middle-Eastern democratic ally which fights to thwart little 9/11s every day.
Everything these days is about not offending Muslims -- not drawing a picture of Mohammed, making sure our institutions now have specific celebrations of Muslim holidays, etc. And all because of 9/11. Seems the chief sin in America these days is offending the Muslims -- and all because of 3,000 murders of American civilians by Muslims on 9/11.
So, I guess
another 9/11 might bring America to bow even
further to Islam.

Apparently, America loves those who kick its ass, and hates those who work peacefully alongside it. It's an interesting psychological phenomenon, to be sure:
not only to love your enemies, but to hate your friends as well.
You don't seem to remember the rash of hate crimes targeting Muslims (and Hindus, and Sikhs, just because they seemed "Middle Eastern" to uneducated Americans) in the aftermath of 9/11. Nor do you seem to acknowledge how much vehemently anti-Islamic sentiment there still is in the US. Remember "Burn a Qu'ran Day"?
I hate excessive political correctness as much as the next guy,
especially when it stems from intimidation tactics. But in my view, generalizing about a certain group of people based on their religion isn't any better. The people who attacked us were not acting on behalf of all Muslims, only a very small fundamentalist minority who believe that anyone who doesn't worship as they do, be they Muslim or not, is anathema. You know what they really wanted? They were hoping we'd react in exactly the way you have here, by generalizing and oversimplifying, and letting our emotional reaction cloud our judgment, and in the process ticking off the portion of the Muslim community that
isn't radicalized. They can't possibly fight us with numbers, so they did what countless guerrilla armies have done before (including us, by the way, during the American Revolution): they resorted to psychological tactics, to get under the skin and into the heads of their opponents.
Your argument is also flawed because many things have happened since 9/11 which have had significant effects on the American popular sentiment toward the Middle East, and as a result, the American government's position. The two biggest things, of course, were Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, I think a lot of Americans (rightfully) are feeling tired of the conflict. It's been more than ten years since we entered Afghanistan, and almost nine since we entered Iraq. I remember the popular mood when we went into these wars-- if you disagreed with the Bush administration on their justification for either of them, you were immediately branded "unpatriotic" or a "traitor". But ten years of fighting is a long time, especially when nobody has really been able to give the American public a good excuse for
why we're still there. We're in a recession now, and these wars are widely seen as an unnecessary drain on the economy. That could have something to do with why there is a perceived upswing in diplomacy.
And what, anyway, is so wrong with adopting a diplomatic and concilliatory position, and trying to negotiate our differences with the Middle East using words instead of bullets? Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." I'm inclined to agree with him.
_________________
Mediocrity is a petty vice; aspiring to it is a grievous sin.