When I say muslims I mean middle eastern muslims. Do these people blame their problems on the U.S. or their own governements. Who should they blame?

I would day first of all that middle-eastern Muslims, so far as I have seen, do not hate their governments in the least, whereas, often for not entirely unfounded reasons, they loathe the United States. What little information I have seen has shown them to be quite content, even fanatical in their following of their own government. Then, of course, many do not have the right to free speech anyway, so they could not express dissent if they had any.

Countries populated by muslim majorities are poor, have high illiteracy rates, poor quality health care, no freedom of speech or religion. But maybe the muslims in these countries don't consider those things important. So I could make a case that maybe they do support their governments. In that case, the people of those countries are evil and simply deserve their fate. If the populations of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia do not support their governments, why the heck don't they rise up and overthrow them? I cannot fathom how they could blame the US for any economic or societal problems in their own countries, don't thousands of Muslims come to this country because of the economic and religious freedom?

So if a Muslim is patriotic he is evil? The people of the Islamic world deserve a fate as a group? Not very enlightened thinking.

As for rising up how about what happened to the Kurds and the south Iraqi Shia who rose up in the aftermath of the Gulf War? They were decimated.

In the modern era an uprising in a military state is nearly impossible.

Do these people have to live and worship the way we do? Has democracy been effective in many countries without a developed middle class? I can't think of a successful democracy in a poor nation off the top of my head.
India it least has a middle class the size of the population of France if one considers that a successful democracy.

Depends upon your definition of 'successful.'

Does successful mean the orderly transference of authority - in that case Mexico (among others) is successful.

or does it mean the population has the freedom to explore economic possibility (the pursuit of happiness)?

or does it mean both?

as for India....I wonder if that middle class percentage wise holds up when compared to other successful democracies.

As for the question on this topic - I think it is easier to externalize one's problem. If one internalizes them, well, that means that one has problems intrinsic to oneself. A hard thing to acknowledge.

Ummm...HeatherRob. How easy do you think it is to overthrow a government? Each of these countries had a different scenario. Iran has an active reform movement. Iraq is under the control of a dictator who has a large portion of the military under his control. The people of these countries are doing what they can, but it takes time and resources. It's not like making coffee.

As far as blame towards the U.S. is concerned, they do see us as the main supporter of Israel, and that factors into dissention towards our government. Additionally, the U.S. has had its hands in the Middle East, manipulating the governments and the people for years. We have assisted military coups and promoted oppressive regimes. Each country has a unique situation.

Gee - maybe because they're poor, have high illiteracy rates, poor quality health care, and no freedom of speech or religion. People who are sick and hungry, who can't read or publish their dissent tend to have a difficult time organizing uprisings. Let's not forget that the American Revolution, for example, was a revolution by the colonial aristocracy. George Washington was the wealthiest individual in the US - and all of the founders were landed gentry who were highly literate, in relatively good health, and with the freedom to assemble and organize. The overthrow of a ridiculously wealthy and well-armed government is not so easy when you're living in a tent with no arms (or much of anything else) hoping that starvation doesn't claim you by nightfall.

Regarding the question posed by RU, I'd say it varies considerably from country to country - both as to who they blame and who they should blame. Even within specific regions (the Middle East) or specific countries (Syria, Iraq, etc.), I don't think we can generalize about "Muslims" any more than we can generalize about "Americans" in this forum.

Hey let's see an original thought, not a regurgitation of my lucid, well contructed post. I seem to recall Europeans who were poor and illiterate and unable to vote immigrating to America in the early 20th century. And many muslims who have emigrated here in the last few decades. So don't tell me it can't be done. It doesn't have to be a violent revolution. A philosophical revolution can be more powerful and longer lasting.

Well, I don't think that is true ...he certainly was a land (and slave) owner but by no means the wealthiest in the country. He was heavily in debt and shortly after his death, his estate was bankrupt.

But, during the Revolutionary period, Charles Carrol (for whom Carrolton, Maryland is named) was much, much wealthier - as was John Hancock, to name but two.

Meanwhile back to the topic on hand - sorry.....

I think we should take the Muslims at their word...why not? The ones that hate us say this is because of our ideas and culture as well as support of Israel. But their problems with us occurred long before Israel came into being. And, there is the additional caveat that there are some who feel that having the entire world convert to Islam is the aim. That radical Mosque in London was proclaiming that intention in a street demonstration just a couple of weeks ago.

It's a clash of cultures and ideas, and how the world should conform (or not) to those ideas.

Aside to Basheva: I don't recall where I saw the "richest man in America" originally (Zinn, perhaps?) - all I've been able to find online is several references to his being "one of the richest men in America". Forbes ranks him 60 in their list of "Richest Men in American History" and the only other contemporary I've found on their list (only part of which is available without subscription) is Elias Hasket Derby (ranked 39), who made his fortune during the revolution, whereas Washington's, primarily through marriage, would've been well before. Nevertheless, the fact remains that our founders (as you further attest) were far from impoverished desert nomads.

Wertz,
I believe Washington was also a very aggressive land speculator.

Take the Washington talk elsewhere

Almost all muslims would love having good and fair government. The government and religous thugs don't speak for the population. I bet most Iraqis want a war so they can get rid of Saddam. The quality of life will always go up when you are invaded by the U.S., that's what these people are about. Would you rather eat or pout about how evil Jews are. No culture or religion can make a person not want freedom and prosperity.

Well, i can tell ya one thing:

With all the Iranian protests over the current Government their, i think it's their government