Why do the right think subversives attack the west?

runswithascript

I've noticed they never seem to give any reason for this apart from the fact that these people hate our way of life etc - surely there's more too it? Hell the dogs in the street know why they do it, do you?

mike65

What do you think is the reason? As you pose the rhetorical question.

Mike.

runswithascript

It wasn't rhetorical.

Interference, Israel, deposing democratically elected leaders to install their own puppets.

We're your friend <insert maniac here>
We're your enemy <insert maniac here>
We're your friend <insert maniac here>
We're your enemy <insert maniac here>

AngelofFire

One of the Main terror groups that attack the west like Al Qaeda and Taliban were supported, armed, trained and even assisted into power by the U.S., but Post 9-11 the U.S. government prefer that people do not find out about the past, because if they do it might Just Put a question mark on the country's commitment to fighting terrorism.

mike65

dusf wrote:

It wasn't rhetorical.

Interference, Israel, deposing democratically elected leaders to install their own puppets.

We're your friend <insert maniac here>
We're your enemy <insert maniac here>
We're your friend <insert maniac here>
We're your enemy <insert maniac here>

I'm intrigued name names please.

Mike.

Frederico

mike65 wrote:

I'm intrigued name names please.

Mike.

Communist China : Friend
Communist Cuba : Enemy
Uzbeki Dictator : Friend
and so on and so forth

runswithascript

mike65 wrote:

I'm intrigued name names please.

Mike.

Lebanon, Iran, Iraq....

Dazrd

Heres why we should take the Idea of america's noble crusade against terrorism with a pinch of salt : during the reagan admin they were condemned by the international court of justice for terrorism and ordered to pay reperations to the sum of 17 billion to the nicaraguans...... needless to say the nicaraguans got squat

in 1987 America and Israel were the only two countrys to vote against a resolution that all states should combat terrorism wherever and by whomever they find it ...... why is that I wonder.

What a differance a few decades make heres a quote from Robert Jackson chief counsel for the U.S at the nuremburg trials

"if certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes,' he said .'they are crimes whether the united states does them or whether germany does them,and we are not prepared to lay down rule of criminal conduct against others we would not be willing to have invoked against us"

That says it all I think

brianthebard

Frederico wrote:

Communist China : Friend
Communist Cuba : Enemy
Uzbeki Dictator : Friend
and so on and so forth

They are both socialist countries, albeit mostly in name in the case of China.

Sand

I've noticed they never seem to give any reason for this apart from the fact that these people hate our way of life etc - surely there's more too it?

Why does there have to be?

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Why does there have to be?

The principle of cause and effect perchance?

Unless you're suggesting that these attacks are just the result of psychopaths with deranged minds, and if that's the case, the whole 'war on terror' amounts to the same thing as carpet bombing the whole state of Vermont just to get Ted Bundy

Sand

The principle of cause and effect perchance?

Unless you're suggesting that these attacks are just the result of psychopaths with deranged minds, and if that's the case, the whole 'war on terror' amounts to the same thing as carpet bombing the whole state of Vermont just to get Ted Bundy

Im suggesting there is no evidence that Jihadists take spiritual guidance from Noam Chomsky. I doubt they give two fecks what Reagan did, US policy on Cuba or that the Nuremberg trials were so hypocritical. Thats the posters on this thread airing their own grievances. Doesnt help an iota in determining Al Queda world view.

So again, I ask, why does there have to be more to it than Jihadist idealogy? Is everyone with a gun and a cause secretly a card carrying member of the armed wing of Amnesty International or something?

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Im suggesting there is no evidence that Jihadists take spiritual guidance from Noam Chomsky. I doubt they give two fecks what Reagan did, US policy on Cuba or that the Nuremberg trials were so hypocritical. Thats the posters on this thread airing their own grievances. Doesnt help an iota in determining Al Queda world view.

So again, I ask, why does there have to be more to it than Jihadist idealogy? Is everyone with a gun and a cause secretly a card carrying member of the armed wing of Amnesty International or something?

Because Al Qaeda have stated demands

But what if, instead, Al Qaeda's agenda is what its leaders repeatedly say it is: an end to the Western
military presence in Muslim lands, to "uncritical political support and military aid" to Israel, and to support of
corrupt Middle Eastern regimes. Most scholars of Islam argue that because jihad is a defensive concept, the
attacks on us must be understood as retaliation for perceived provocations, and that Al Qaeda's stated agenda —
which has been consistent since 1996 — should be taken literally.

http://www.nyu.edu/ccpr/LA%20TImes%20OpEd_9.19.05.pdf

And why is it so hard to imagine that Islamic people feel a similar kind of urge to defend their religion and homes as the 'Patriotic' volunteers for the U.S. army?

Dazrd

The rights they hate our way of life excuse is a crock of ****, if that were true why do all the countries in western Europe have sizable muslim communities do they believe their all sleeper agents just waiting to be activated, its laughable.

Sand

And why is it so hard to imagine that Islamic people feel a similar kind of urge to defend their religion and homes as the 'Patriotic' volunteers for the U.S. army?

Because the 'Patriotic' volunteers of the U.S. army arent suicide bombing kids and other innocent in Detroit, whilst your supposed patriotic vision of the Jihadists in Iraq are doing their best to murder as many Muslims of the "wrong" stripe as they can in Baghdad. Theres a certain break in the equivalence there.

You might then admit, that perhaps there is other motivations at play. Though I doubt you will.

Long story short - these guys have their own goals and objectives. They do not include voting anarchist socialist or whatever particular angle you have. They have not taken up arms to destroy US or Western influence in the Islamic world and then retire, they have done so to destroy the current status quo in the Islamic world - including the genocide of impure peoples such as Shia muslims - and replace it with one of their own making. This obviously requires the removal of Western influence, but it doesnt end there as you imagine. It doesnt really matter if you think theyre fighting to avenge Reagan or whatever. Thats your angle, do them the credit of allowing that they have their own angle.

Sand

if that were true why do all the countries in western Europe have sizable muslim communities do they believe their all sleeper agents just waiting to be activated, its laughable.

Because being muslim doesnt mean youre a wild eyed fanatical terrorist. FYI.

InFront

Because the 'Patriotic' volunteers of the U.S. army arent suicide bombing kids and other innocent in Detroit, whilst your supposed patriotic vision of the Jihadists in Iraq are doing their best to murder as many Muslims of the "wrong" stripe as they can in Baghdad. Theres a certain break in the equivalence there.

They're going out to Iraq to kill Iraqis/ Militants/ patriots of "the wrong stripe" as you call it, and in doing so seriously endangering their own lives for the USA. They put themselves in dangers way for patriotism. There's a certain break in the equivalence there.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Because the 'Patriotic' volunteers of the U.S. army arent suicide bombing kids and other innocent in Detroit, whilst your supposed patriotic vision of the Jihadists in Iraq are doing their best to murder as many Muslims of the "wrong" stripe as they can in Baghdad. Theres a certain break in the equivalence there.

Nope, because Detroit isn't under hostile military occupation is it, but there are gang wars in American cities where thousands of poor black kids are killed every year because they are literally wearing the "wrong" stripe' and there are many innocent deaths which are racially motivated

The Latino gang members were looking for a black person, any black person, to shoot, the police said, and they found one. Cheryl Green, perched near her scooter chatting with friends, was shot dead in a spray of bullets that left several other young people injured.

She was 14, an eighth grader who loved junk food and watching Court TV with her mother and had recently written a poem beginning: “I am black and beautiful. I wonder how I will be living in the future.”

“I never thought something like this could happen here in L.A.,” said her mother, Charlene Lovett, fighting tears.

Cheryl’s killing last month, which the police said followed a confrontation between the gang members and a black man, stands out in a wave of bias-related attacks and incidents in a city that promotes its diversity as much as frets over it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/us/17race.html?ei=5090&en=a34ac77e3d9a409f&ex=1326690000&partner=r&pagewanted=print

You might then admit, that perhaps there is other motivations at play. Though I doubt you will.

What are those other motivations again? That they hate our freedom?

Long story short - these guys have their own goals and objectives. They do not include voting anarchist socialist or whatever particular angle you have. They have not taken up arms to destroy US or Western influence in the Islamic world and then retire, they have done so to destroy the current status quo in the Islamic world - including the genocide of impure peoples such as Shia muslims - and replace it with one of their own making. This obviously requires the removal of Western influence, but it doesnt end there as you imagine. It doesnt really matter if you think theyre fighting to avenge Reagan or whatever. Thats your angle, do them the credit of allowing that they have their own angle.

Responding to U.S. foreign Policy is the angle that they claim for themselves, It is you who are ascribing to them your own perveived agenda

Sand

They're going out to Iraq to kill Iraqis/ Militants/ patriots of "the wrong stripe" as you call it, and in doing so seriously endangering their own lives for the USA. They put themselves in dangers way for patriotism. There's a certain break in the equivalence there.

In your own mind. How its patriotic to kill the people youre supposedly patriotic about is a new one on me. The obvious conclusion is that jihadists dont give two ****s about the Iraqi people seeing as theyre doing their best to deliberately murder them. Apparently theyre now using children to beat road blocks - previously the Iraqi army/coalition forces waved through vehicles with children in them as they didnt consider it likely that the insurgents would use their kids as cover. And yet, they do.

Nope, because Detroit isn't under hostile military occupation is it, but there are gang wars in American cities where thousands of poor black kids are killed every year because they are literally wearing the "wrong" stripe' and there are many innocent deaths which are racially motivated

Seriously - what the f**k are you going on about here? Back to the topic, leave the tirade about institutionalised US racism for another thread.

What are those other motivations again? That they hate our freedom?

No, Im sure they believe whatever you read in Noam Chomskys latest book.:rolleyes:

Responding to U.S. foreign Policy is the angle that they claim for themselves, It is you who are ascribing to them your own perveived agenda

Right, so you believe they *are* the armed wing of Amnesty International and thats why theyre bombing each other in Baghdad - because they didnt like what Reagan did to the Nicaraguans 20 years ago. Yeah, seems reasonable.

InFront

In your own mind. How its patriotic to kill the people youre supposedly patriotic about is a new one on me.

Wait a minute, weren't the Americans getting all patriotic about the Iraqis about this time four years ago? The oppressed people who wanted to just *let freedom ring*

Institutionalised US racism? seriously... read your history.

runswithascript

Sand wrote:

Why does there have to be?

I'm not a fan of Israel's policies but I'm not going to fly halfway around the world and blow people up.

Voipjunkie

dusf wrote:

I'm not a fan of Israel's policies but I'm not going to fly halfway around the world and blow people up.

If you were living in Palestine and were directly affected by those policies of course you would not have to fly anywhere and would have a huge encouragement to take that kind of action.

The move to fundamentalist islam is a reaction to the "Wests" involvement in the middle east in much the same way that the Poles moved to Catholicism as a reaction to the Soviet Occupation and this country did the same after 7 decades we started to move on and that thankfully is continuing the same will happen in Poland and if the west would leave the Middle East alone those people in those countries would do the same.
It can be most obviously seen in Iraq which was a a moderate pluralist society prior to the invasion. And in Afghanistan which was a relatively peaceful non fundamentalist country prior to the Soviet invasion.

InFront

Exactly. And Iran before The British/ Americans installed the Shah.

SeanW

Well, to be fair inFront, dusf et. al. the violence in Iraq seems to be just random slaughter of civilians rather than any kind of war.

I don't like the Iraq war any more than the next guy, but with most of the attacks in Iraq being aimed at murdering as many fellow Muslims in cafes and markets as possible, and at the Iraqi police who are only trying to restore order, my view is that the insurrection is a terrorist one rather than any kind of legitimate resistance.

I too have read of and seen some detail over the modern imperial muslce-flexing over various parts of the underdeveloped world, like from the Soviet Union, USA etc and I wish it wasn't happening. It would be so much better if we could all just get along and progress as a human race but we're not really doing that, I guess that's just the world we live in.

runswithascript

Sand wrote:

Because the 'Patriotic' volunteers of the U.S. army arent suicide bombing kids and other innocent in Detroit, whilst your supposed patriotic vision of the Jihadists in Iraq are doing their best to murder as many Muslims of the "wrong" stripe as they can in Baghdad.

Firstly we're not talking about what subversives do in Baghdad; see the title of this thread.

Secondly in regards to things not being equivalent are you totally ignorant to how many people have been murdered by US Forces, mainly from the air?

I don't condone the killing of innocent people on either side or in fact the killing of the guilty by Americans. I don't sympathize with suicide bombers but I do empathise with them and before someone calls me a terrorist apologist please make sure you understand the difference or else I shall have to direct you to a dictionary definition.

InFront

Seanw, there are many different elements to the insurgency - some is legitimate resistance, the rest of it is not.
That isn't letting the US forces off the hook by the way, despite what their apologists say. It's a bit like setting off a domino system and then protesting "I didn't do anything!"

Some might still say that affirms US innocence - and yes the insurgents who are not focusing their interests on the US (and they are many) are impossible to defend.

But remember the US Army are the guys who appointed themselves in charge of the security situation there. If there was rioting in Ohio, and the army couldn't stop it, people would blame the army for being powerless. But when it happens in Iraq people say 'hey don't blame us'.

Colin Powell once reminded his boss that through the invasion, he had just become responsible for 30 million Iraqis. Knowing the divisions that existed, the invaders still asked for responsibility of the Iraqi security situation. They have failed to provide that security. That seems something that is lost on a lot of people.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

In your own mind. How its patriotic to kill the people youre supposedly patriotic about is a new one on me. The obvious conclusion is that jihadists dont give two ****s about the Iraqi people seeing as they're doing their best to deliberately murder them.

It's a sectarian civil war and it's being constantly inflamed by the presence of occupation forces. (there is a lot of evidence that the U.S. are pursuing the 'Salvador option' in Iraq. If you don't know what that is, look it up.) There is a lot of evidence that death squads are operationg with impunity all over Iraq and it is possible, if not probable, that these death squads are being backed by the United states
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FUL506A.html

Seriously - what the f**k are you going on about here? Back to the topic, leave the tirade about institutionalised US racism for another thread.

You brought up Detroit Sand as if it was relevant and as if it demonstrated that Islamic fighters are somehow uniquely blood thirsty. (What does that have to do with anything, detroit isn't under imperial occupation) You 'doubt' that the jihadists are motivated by western attacks on their religion and race, (based on your belief that muslims are incapable of empathising with their kin?) but you have no problem with the concept of altruistic patriotic american GIs fighting because they "love america"? It's a double standard verging on racism

No, Im sure they believe whatever you read in Noam Chomskys latest book.:rolleyes:

Cop on sand. Do you think these Arabs are stupid? They know the history of american Imperialism far better than most people in the west, they have experienced it first hand. America has been bombing Iraq regularly and without pause since 1992. They killed at least 100,000 in the first invasion, at least a million through sanctions and are responsible for a further 600,000 deaths and countless maimings since 2003.

The arab world has about a million times more reason to be pissed off at america than america has to be pissed off at the Arabs, but still, America are preparing to invade another middle eastern islamic country for no reason.

runswithascript

American Imperialism?

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

nacho libre

Akrasia, you are clearly wrong.
Can't you see Sand's train of thought in this thread is spot-on.
Arabs are all bloodthirsty "jihadists" they have absolutely no reason to hate America. American governance over the years has been nothing but benevolent -a paragon of virtue. Sure America might kill hundreds of thousands of Arabs from time to time but the dead appreciate they have to be sacrificed for liberation.
America's main foreign policy aim has always been to spread democracy and freedom, their primary motivation has never been expansionism.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Cop on sand.

If you don't want another ban,you won't be asking other posters to cop on,you will instead stick strictly to dealing with their posts.
The only people that will be telling people to op on in this thread will be politics moderators,Smods or admins.
Everyone is entitled to express an opinion here and to explain why they have that opinion.It's your own problem if you don't like their opinion but you may not make it personal.
So Cop on Akrasia.

runswithascript

nacho libre wrote:

Arabs are all bloodthirsty "jihadists" they have absolutely no reason to hate America

You Sir, are a racist.

America's main foreign policy aim has always been to spread democracy and freedom, their primary motivation has never been expansionism.

What a crock - their foreign policy is to spread and exert their will though I must admit things are a helluva lot better with a democrat in the whitehouse.