Does the west deserve what they are getting from terrorists?

Dampsquid

Well do we?

Western countries have gone in to 3 countries now. Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lebannon. Killing 1000's of innocent civilians. They use high tech equipment to minimise the risk to the military. There is no hope for the people of these countries to fight back and win a war against the wests military, so their only option is to attack the home countries of the invaders, using terrorist tactics.

Hobbes

Only 3 countries? When does your timeline start?

mike65

And should we go all the way back to when Muslim nations attacked the 'west'?

Mike.

BlitzKrieg

And should we go all the way back to when Muslim nations attacked the 'west'?

and europe felt 'BOXED IN' oh 2nd year history...what fun.

InFront

What a strange question. I dont think you'll get anyone saying the west 'deserves it'.
Should the west be surprised that terrorists are still striking them? Obviously not. Maybe the west should start striking the terrorists. Just an idea...

lostexpectation

im not sure if they deserve it, they have been asking for it.

fly_agaric

Dampsquid wrote:

Well do we?

Western countries have gone in to 3 countries now. Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lebannon. Killing 1000's of innocent civilians. They use high tech equipment to minimise the risk to the military. There is no hope for the people of these countries to fight back and win a war against the wests military, so their only option is to attack the home countries of the invaders, using terrorist tactics.

Well if you feel you personally [rather than the massive + disparate collective called "the West" which includes "us" (Ireland)] have something to atone for why don't you go and find somebody to chop your head off or something nasty like that rather than trying to persuade the rest of us we deserve to be attacked by terrorists.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Wolff

when did the west invade the leb ?

Did I miss something

Did I oversleep again ?

And seeing as most of the terrorists seem to be coming from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and none so far from any of these counteries - your point is what exactly ?

DadaKopf

Lebanon's real bad, but what "terrorists are doing to us" pales in comparison to the terrible things happening in other parts of the world that don't affect us.

The West suffers from a serious case of narcissism.

fly_agaric

DadaKopf wrote:

Lebanon's real bad, but what "terrorists are doing to us" pales in comparison to the terrible things happening in other parts of the world that don't affect us.

Nobody here said that as far as I can see.
Do you [or better, anyone you might know living in the UK/US which more-or-less cheered on the Israeli offensive from the sidelines] feel personally responsible for Israel destroying Lebanon? Culpable enough that you deserve to have a relative die in a terrorist attack on London?

meepins

Dampsquid wrote:

Well do we?

Western countries have gone in to 3 countries now. Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lebannon. Killing 1000's of innocent civilians. They use high tech equipment to minimise the risk to the military. There is no hope for the people of these countries to fight back and win a war against the wests military, so their only option is to attack the home countries of the invaders, using terrorist tactics.

Yeah we have it hard from these terrorists don't we :rolleyes:

Mick86

Dampsquid wrote:

Well do we?

Western countries have gone in to 3 countries now. Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lebannon. Killing 1000's of innocent civilians. They use high tech equipment to minimise the risk to the military. There is no hope for the people of these countries to fight back and win a war against the wests military, so their only option is to attack the home countries of the invaders, using terrorist tactics.

So what's your excuse for Pakistani, Saudi and Egyptian terrorists?

Generic_Dave

No, "WE" don't. Same way the people in Liverpool, Omagh and all the other places the IRA and other Northern groups bombed didn't deserve it. And plus I'd say that at the moment in Iraq "THE WEST" isn't killing most of the civilians. Mostly all I've seen are suicide bombers killing Iraqis. In most places that's civil war, but I think that's a dirty term as far as Iraq goes.

Though there is a certain reap what you sowed in American foreign policy. Afghistan, Iraq, Israel/Leb, didn't America have alot to do with there being AK-47's under every bed in the Middle-East. I mean we all know the CIA trained and funded the Mujjahadeen (probably spelt wrong, but I've come across several spellings), and sold weapons to the Iraq, over threw the government of Iran for The Shah and that lead to the Theocratic system they have now. But then again hindsight is a great thing.

While I don't believe "WE'RE" responsible, I do see that side of the arguement. And there is a slight difference with attacking a military target or combating insurgents with rifles and bombing a train of civilians purely for the purpose if killing civilians. While I do believe that the US government is capable of many things, I just can't see them bombing a train purely to kill civilians. Maybe through Intelligence errors, but intentionally? Collatoral damage is disgusting and on the scale in the Leb it's a downright crime against humanity. But it's not the intent, because as we're seen civilian casualities encourage terrorism, they don't fight it.

lostexpectation

Mick86 wrote:

So what's your excuse for Pakistani, Saudi and Egyptian terrorists?

somebody on skynews was saying something like this, and the muslim guy said well history didn't start with 9/11 (a good point) and the smartarse newscaster said well how far do you want to go back the crusades the invasion of andulacia, no but I think you can go back 50 to a hundred years.

antSionnach

No no no no no. If there wasnt a sky news reporter there it didnt happen. History is irrelevant, you see...

Húrin

Dampsquid wrote:

Well do we?

No we don't. It's an internationally agreed principle that deliberately killing civilians is a crime. Last time the Islamists had a possibly legitimate target was the Pentagon in 2001.

The Islamists don't discriminate between Western countries, we're all infidels to them. They've targeted numerous countries, not only those who have helped America's wars.

I'm against the wars in Iraq and Lebanon and generally critical of the antagonising effect of the US in the Middle East, but I'm tired of all the apologetics for Islamic terrorists, and the self-flagellation. Violent Muslim fundamentalism must be wiped out, and its adherents must not be in power in any country (from a human rights perspective). I certainly don't want any fundamentalists in Europe.

Mick86

lostexpectation wrote:

somebody on skynews was saying something like this, and the muslim guy said well history didn't start with 9/11 (a good point) and the smartarse newscaster said well how far do you want to go back the crusades the invasion of andulacia, no but I think you can go back 50 to a hundred years.

The "muslim guy" thinks history began with the foundation of Israel.

My point was incidentally that neither Pakistan, Saudi Arabia nor Egypt have been invaded by western states in the last 50 years yet terrorists from these places are attempting to commit atrocities in Europe and the US. That being the case the theory that Islamic terrorism is caused solely by the actions of western states is rubbish.

Whatever the problem is with these lads is irrelevant anyway. I don't see that terrorism can be or should be justified in any circumstances.

gilroyb

No.

lostexpectation

Mick86 wrote:

The "muslim guy" thinks history began with the foundation of Israel.

My point was incidentally that neither Pakistan, Saudi Arabia nor Egypt have been invaded by western states in the last 50 years yet terrorists from these places are attempting to commit atrocities in Europe and the US. That being the case the theory that Islamic terrorism is caused solely by the actions of western states is rubbish.

Whatever the problem is with these lads is irrelevant anyway. I don't see that terrorism can be or should be justified in any circumstances.

they havn't been invaded because american troops were invited in by a small elite, one bin ladens main problems the huge number of troops and city sized bases on saudi soil. Don't you think apart from violent/rich bin laden types, they might alot people not happy with that?

roberta c

who deserves what? no civillian had much to do with attacks on north south east or west... yet they are the ones who are usually attacked in wars, ect.

slightly unrelated question there,
i was asking myself the other day why islamic terrorists are trying to kill us westerners. is it because there religion says we are bad people for not being muslim and therefore they must kill us?
i never got the basics there... born to late for them or somth...

Collie D

H&#250 wrote: »

The Islamists don't discriminate between Western countries, we're all infidels to them. They've targeted numerous countries, not only those who have helped America's wars.

I'm against the wars in Iraq and Lebanon and generally critical of the antagonising effect of the US in the Middle East, but I'm tired of all the apologetics for Islamic terrorists, and the self-flagellation. Violent Muslim fundamentalism must be wiped out, and its adherents must not be in power in any country (from a human rights perspective). I certainly don't want any fundamentalists in Europe.

Took the words out of my mouth. I don't believe in the US carpet bombing a country but this is no excuse to blow up innocent civilians in the west. And weren't all of those arrested last week born in the UK?

Mick86

Mick86 wrote:

The "muslim guy" thinks history began with the foundation of Israel.

My point was incidentally that neither Pakistan, Saudi Arabia nor Egypt have been invaded by western states in the last 50 years yet terrorists from these places are attempting to commit atrocities in Europe and the US. That being the case the theory that Islamic terrorism is caused solely by the actions of western states is rubbish.

Whatever the problem is with these lads is irrelevant anyway. I don't see that terrorism can be or should be justified in any circumstances.

Solely? Nah I would agree with you there. However the "west" has more impact that just invasions into their countries. For a long time before WW2 Britain dablled heavily in their cultures, and after WW2 britain was swapped with the US. You have the debacle of the Canal in the 50's and other little incidents.

Its easy to understand really. Look at Irish people for instance. Many Irish people after a few drinks, along with a conversation about Britain occupying ireland, will get quite aggressive about it. The North hasn't settled its anger/hatred, but what about people here in the South? What reason have the people that go loopy about Ireland being a colony for 700 years?

It amounts to the same, except that the Arabs have had more countries dip into their territory. The crusades, later colonial progess into their own nations, trade disputes etc. The "west" (a phrase I think is what curses us as being the same boat) has done all of things, and now that they're over we expect them to move on.

Its not reasonable to expect them to forget the influence that Western Nations have had on their past economically, military or otherwise.

This isn't an excuse for terrorism. However, you can understand that there would be some bad feeling especially considering the UN ineffectual handling of the area, US meddling, Israel's existance, and the amount of western companies that have gone in over the decades.

roberta c

roberta c wrote:

i was asking myself the other day why islamic terrorists are trying to kill us westerners. is it because there religion says we are bad people for not being muslim and therefore they must kill us?

Because we're corrupted :rolleyes: There is only God and his name is Allah. Considering some of their countries have laws which stone women for adultery. Mass generalisation, but many "believers" haven't moved out of the middle ages, and unfortuently their weaponry has.

InFront

roberta c wrote:

i was asking myself the other day why islamic terrorists are trying to kill us westerners. is it because there religion says we are bad people for not being muslim and therefore they must kill us?
i never got the basics there... born to late for them or somth...

It is not supported in religion

This is an article that was printed in the LA Times after September 11, and demonstrates this point.

The war of the terrorists is as much a war against Islam as it is a war against the West.
By continuing to maintain a clear line between terrorism and Islam, society can again make legitimate all the varied and peaceful traditions of Islam - including those that oppose terrorism. This allows us to precisely isolate and destroy the terrorists, while working on a really comprehensive program to get rid of militant fundamentalism within Islam.
Currently, US foreign policy does not greatly differentiate between Islam and fundamentalism, between Muslim mothers and Militant Mujihideen, and in my opinion, that is a reasonably large factor in the growth of terrorism.
When they politicize the religion, we end up with the phenomenon of murderous revolutionaries jumping on the bandwagon, politicizing religion in turn for their own political purposes.

That is why comments like this one are so unhelpful:

Originally posted by Deleted User
Because we're corrupted :rolleyes: There is only God and his name is Allah.

InFront

InFront wrote:

That is why comments like this one are so unhelpful:

Nothing I said is wrong. Unhelpful? Only if you want to live in a politically correct world where you have to tip-toe around peoples faiths without making any realistic references to it. I doubt you'd feel the same way if I used the same phrase when talking about the more devout and fundemental Jews out there, that provide acts of violence.

This isn't about making wild claims about a faith. We are corrupted in the eyes of their faith. As long as we follow other gods whether religious or economic, or fail to follow their religious law, we're beneath them. And there is only one God whose name is Allah, and there have been wars over the use of that name.

And frankly blindsighting yourself to this isn't helpful either.

InFront

There are so many inaccuarcies it's hard to know where to begin.
Firstly Islam is considered the one true faith. However you want to interpret that is your perogative. Which religion does not consider itself to be correct? To concede such a thing would be to contradict its very existance.
Jews, and the Christians for that matter, are afforded a special recognition in Islam as 'people of the book'.

Choosing to view terrorism as a genuine religious struggle is only giving credence to the terrorists who see themselves as religious heroes, and is a grossly misinformed opinion. Im not having that debate with you.

bug

Dampsquid wrote:

Well do we?

Western countries have gone in to 3 countries now. Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lebannon. Killing 1000's of innocent civilians. They use high tech equipment to minimise the risk to the military. There is no hope for the people of these countries to fight back and win a war against the wests military, so their only option is to attack the home countries of the invaders, using terrorist tactics.

Who is we exactly?
Me personally, no.

InFront

InFront wrote:

Choosing to view terrorism as a genuine religious struggle is only giving credence to the terrorists who see themselves as religious heroes, and is a grossly misinformed opinion. Im not having that debate with you.

Actually it was you that suggested that. I'm just saying that some terrorists use their faith as part of their drive against the west. This isn't a label on all of islam, since the moderates oif the faith are harmless, and wouldn't hurt anyone, any more that you or I. However Islam did have an issue with any of those not conforming to their faith, and that issue is there for any who wish to have an excuse to make war against western civilisation.

But you don't want to debate it. Fine. Then don't say I'm wrong and leave it at that. Keep silent if you don't want to talk about it, and prove what I'm saying is wrong.