Why do the right think subversives attack the west?

Sand

Wait a minute, weren't the Americans getting all patriotic about the Iraqis about this time four years ago?

People from Country A technically cant be patriotic about Country B - only Country A. Stop trying to shift goalposts.

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

Were talking about Jihadist terrorism, which is currently inspiring attacks on Shia mosques, religious figures and muslims in Iraq with counter attacks on Sunni mosques, religious figures and muslims in Iraq. Someone tried to make some point about equivalence between the motivations of the US army [patriotism] and the various jihadist groups which are deeply hostile to Shia Islam. This hostility isnt limited to Iraq, it is idealogical - several incidents almost sparked war between the Taliban and Iran [who were quite happy to see the regime taken out]

It is plain out delusional to think that jihadist idealogy is defending Islamic peoples and countries given that they are doing their best to murder Islamic peoples who dont meet with their standards.

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?

Okay so now you believe the US airforce is bombing Detroit?

You brought up Detroit Sand as if it was relevant and as if it demonstrated that Islamic fighters are somehow uniquely blood thirsty.

I brought it up to demonstrate the ludicrous nature of claiming its patriotic to murder your own countrymen. The agenda of jihadist groups goes far beyond some wishful thinking about defending the Islamic world. They have a plan for the Islamic world, one which I doubt Amnesty International would wholly approve of.

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

Jihadist groups are targeting and murdering Islamic civillians and leaders. How in gods name alone that is patriotic in Islamic terms is a mystery to all except you it seems. Its an opinion completely devoid of reason, logic or factual grounding. You *wish* it was true, but that does not make it true.

You Sir, are a racist.

Heh, its like a f**king carwreak:rolleyes: . He was being sarcastic...badly, but he tried. Good job on the j'accuse, but personal abuse is a no no.

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

.

Whooooosh.

dusf

dusf wrote:

You Sir, are a racist.
.

And you sir are banned for 2 weeks

democrates

Sand you mentioned Iran. I get the impression there's more going on than meets the eye.

The key source for the wmd 'intelligence' is said by some to have turned out to be an Iranian agent. If this is true, then it's highly probable Iran wanted the USA to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Since then, Iran is accused of fuelling one side of the fued, if this is so it would seem they want to make it impossible for the occupiers/liberators to succeed in establishing peace, let alone a peaceful western style democracy.

Now that the situation has descended into chaos and the call to retreat has grown, the option of a regional plan was touted as the best solution. But Iran have been threatening Israel with genocide, looking like they are at risk of developing nuclear weapons, so on the face of it looking like a lunatic nation that the USA/UK etc cannot contemplate sitting down at the bargaining table with.

The USA/UK etc seem to be faced with simply retreating and admitting failure, and living with the regional and global consequences of that. Worse, if Iran goads with the nuclear threat enough the coalition of the willing can't invade/hold/pacify - already proven impossible, so they may either invade/destroy/retreat like Israels last Lebanon incursion, just bomb key installations, and/or attempt to back another coup, good luck with that, either way causing another firestorm of outrage across the region and at best averting nuclear catastrophe.

Ahmadinejad could be as mad as he sounds and be thirsty for a major (nuclear?) war, or he could be playing some very cunning strategic game.

Could a loss of regional influence for the USA/UK (and the rest of the world in general) and/or the removal of 'infidels' be all they want, or is there additional advantage sought, eg carve Iraq once it's vacated with the oil-rich south annexed by Iran "for the protection of the Shia and their sacred cities of Najaf and Karbala"?

The nuclear threat seems to be getting played up deliberately as opposed to developed in secret as one would expect, and we have all the anti-Israel hyperbole. Iran could potentially do a deal and appear to be making major concessions. In return they get to expand their territory into southern Iraq, promise no more nuclear weapons pursuit, secure uranium ore for electricity allowing international inspections, and sell oil.

I don't know how that would work for the rest of it though. A Kurdistan north would hardly be tolerated by Turkey, or could it with EU/UN pressure and some deal on access to oil/contracts, or could the north become part of Turkey? But that would leave the resource poor Sunni center, could Syria expand here and be content with a land-grab and an oil deal?

Could be a win-win deal all around (obviously referring to the dealmakers here and not the humanitarian disaster), Iraq 'solved', Iranian nuclear threat averted, Syria and Turkey satisfied-ish, oil flowing, reconstuction projects underway. There's not much of a unified Iraqi national identity to preserve anyway, but while I can see an easy deal for Iran I'm not sure on the rest of it.

It's just seeing the USA/UK caught so wrong-footed at every step and Iran apparently in the shadows each time leads me to suspect a serious level of craftiness, at the individual fighter level it's a different thing but the ruling powers are another species.

Akrasia

..

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Quote:
Wait a minute, weren't the Americans getting all patriotic about the Iraqis about this time four years ago?

Jihadist groups are targeting and murdering Islamic civillians and leaders. How in gods name alone that is patriotic in Islamic terms is a mystery to all except you it seems. Its an opinion completely devoid of reason, logic or factual grounding. You *wish* it was true, but that does not make it true.

Civil wars are always countryman against country man, and when a country is under occupation, those who are seen as collaborating with the enemy are targets. It happened in the Irish civil war, it happened in ther American civil war, it's a matter of scale. Iraq is very fecked up right now, but that is largely the fault of U.S foreign policy going back decades

Dazrd

How did Dusf not sense the sarcasm in Nachos post it was dripping in it

wes

Akrasia wrote:

Civil wars are always countryman against country man, and when a country is under occupation, those who are seen as collaborating with the enemy are targets. It happened in the Irish civil war, it happened in ther American civil war, it's a matter of scale. Iraq is very fecked up right now, but that is largely the fault of U.S foreign policy going back decades

To be fair if we are gonna blame foreign policy then the British are just as responsible for the current shape of Iraq, maybe even more so, than the U.S.

Akrasia

wes wrote:

Akrasia wrote:

To be fair if we are gonna blame foreign policy then the British are just as responsible for the current shape of Iraq, maybe even more so, than the U.S.

Yeah you're right. The problem is imperialism and the onsequences are always negative, whether it's American, British, Chinese Russian or whoever. All these attempts at creating client states and protectorates have loads of negative consequences

InFront

Sand wrote:

People from Country A technically cant be patriotic about Country B - only Country A. Stop trying to shift goalposts.

Stop trying to pretend it doesn't count. What I'm pointing out is that four years ago, the oppression and savagery of that 'evil dictator' Saddam was a uniting force for the democratic 'God-fearing' Americans under their leader. The leadership appealed to the patriotism of the Americans to find in itself the motivation to "liberate" Iraqis - Operation Iraqi Freedom, as it was called. It doesn't mean that Americans are Iraqi Patriots - but that they got patriotic about Iraq

Originally posted by Sand
How its patriotic to kill the people youre supposedly patriotic about is a new one on me.

wes

Akrasia wrote:

Yeah you're right. The problem is imperialism and the onsequences are always negative, whether it's American, British, Chinese Russian or whoever. All these attempts at creating client states and protectorates have loads of negative consequences

Also to be fairer still the Ottomans are also responsible for the unholy mess to a lesser degree.

Dontico

nacho libre wrote:

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.

this is blatantly racist. isnt just isulting to muslims, arabs and rational think westerners everywhere. the fact that someone was banned for pointing out this poster is racist just shows that soem mods on this forum is racist.

i am well aware of the risk that i myself my be banned fom this forum.

after the nazi's where defeated everyone said "never again".

edit: if the poster was trying to be funny he should added a smiley face or a "/joking" after it. i'm sicken about the level of acceptable racism going around today.

InFront

I think nacho libre was being sarcastic:)
Sometimes sarcasm comes out weird on the internet though

Dontico

democrates wrote:

Ahmadinejad could be as mad as he sounds and be thirsty for a major (nuclear?) war, or he could be playing some very cunning strategic game.

under iranian law, the president himself cant wage war against another country. the president is democraticaly elected to apoint ministers to run the country and to represent iran globally. it is the job of the *'supreme ruler' to wage war against another country.

*i think thats what he is called. not sure how he is appointed. my guess either through the mosques or some royal family.

nacho libre

Dontico wrote:

this is blatantly racist. isnt just isulting to muslims, arabs and rational think westerners everywhere. the fact that someone was banned for pointing out this poster is racist just shows that soem mods on this forum is racist.

i am well aware of the risk that i myself my be banned fom this forum.

after the nazi's where defeated everyone said "never again".

edit: if the poster was trying to be funny he should added a smiley face or a "/joking" after it. i'm sicken about the level of acceptable racism going around today.

I thought it was obvious i was being sarcastic. I suppose it's hard to detect that on the internet. Anyway, sorry for offending anyone with my original post.

Dontico

Dontico wrote:

this is blatantly racist. isnt just isulting to muslims, arabs and rational think westerners everywhere. the fact that someone was banned for pointing out this poster is racist just shows that soem mods on this forum is racist.

i am well aware of the risk that i myself my be banned fom this forum.

after the nazi's where defeated everyone said "never again".

edit: if the poster was trying to be funny he should added a smiley face or a "/joking" after it. i'm sicken about the level of acceptable racism going around today.

If you have a problem with a post -Report it
Taking up issues in thread like that is not acceptable.
Discussing forum moderation in thread is not acceptable.
Accusing mods of racism with no justification is not acceptable.
I'm not banning you on this occasion,though this is the 2nd time I've seen you disrupt threads here with a side swipe at modding.
Do not do this again or there will be a ban imposed-oh and relax too will ya please,this is the internet-all is not as it seems to you.


I'm not warning anybody about this again

democrates

Dontico wrote:

under iranian law, the president himself cant wage war against another country. the president is democraticaly elected to apoint ministers to run the country and to represent iran globally. it is the job of the *'supreme ruler' to wage war against another country.

*i think thats what he is called. not sure how he is appointed. my guess either through the mosques or some royal family.

It's all there on wiki, you're right of course I should refer to the Iranian establishment to include all the power players and not just the president.

Tea drinker

InFront wrote:

Stop trying to pretend it doesn't count. What I'm pointing out is that four years ago, the oppression and savagery of that 'evil dictator' Saddam was a uniting force for the democratic 'God-fearing' Americans under their leader. The leadership appealed to the patriotism of the Americans to find in itself the motivation to "liberate" Iraqis - Operation Iraqi Freedom, as it was called. It doesn't mean that Americans are Iraqi Patriots - but that they got patriotic about Iraq

Your point is well made and correct. I would however draw a parrallel between operation Iraqi freedom and the current civil war which the removal of Saddam precipitated. Both are carried out under false pretences, both are about power / money / oil. I'm sure there is a fair bit of score settling going on in Iraq, pent up over many years, the lid is off big time. In other words, US might not necessarily responsible for the root causes of the conflict, but made it almost inevitable by removing Sadman.
....Or am I wrong????

InFront

Well I don't think you are. It's not that the Americans can be held as responsible as the guy with explosives attached to his chest outside a hospital, that's not comparing like and like.
But all they had to do was look back at history, to see what happens when you upset the equilibrium in a divided society and install chaos. It's easy: further chaos ensues.
This happened in India with Muslims and the Hindus, it happened in Lebanon and Bosnia, it even happened in Ireland.

This isn't people being revisionary, the US were warned about it. Look at this article from the run up to the invasion, "The Coming Iraqi Civil War"
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030404.asp

What did he know that the White House didn't?!

oscarBravo

Tristrame wrote:

I'm not banning you on this occasion...

I am. Two weeks.

Sand

It's just seeing the USA/UK caught so wrong-footed at every step and Iran apparently in the shadows each time leads me to suspect a serious level of craftiness, at the individual fighter level it's a different thing but the ruling powers are another species.

Id have said no, when you consider the complete mess made of the immediate post war occupation by the US leadership then its not that hard for the Iranians to seem a step ahead.

Theres no doubt that the Iranians would welcome the removal of both the Taliban and Saddam, and they certainly would do little to stabilise or help the US in either country unless violence threatened to overflow into Iran, which doesnt appear likely. Id say its more likely theyre beneficiaries of US actions, rather than pulling strings though - the reasons for invading Iraq were multiple, and the US administration clearly made up its mind to go in regardless of evidence well before the invasion. Bombings of Iraq were a regular occurence back into the 90s and the sanctions were failing so there was a long term desire to "finish" the Gulf War and tie up all the loose ends - sanctions, troops deployed in SA, Saddam in power etc etc.

Civil wars are always countryman against country man, and when a country is under occupation, those who are seen as collaborating with the enemy are targets. It happened in the Irish civil war, it happened in ther American civil war, it's a matter of scale. Iraq is very fecked up right now, but that is largely the fault of U.S foreign policy going back decades

But the targeting of Sunnis and Shias is not being done on the basis of who is being seen to collaborate with "the enemy" [I assume you mean the coalition forces?]. Theres not some joint Sunni-Shia resistance targeting collaborators - theres violently opposed Sunni and Shia groups that are at each others throats. The sectarian bloodshed was unleashed on its current scale by the AQ attack on the Samara mosque.This was a highly successful [from AQ point of view] measure in a campaign designed to spark conflict between Shias and Sunnis, with the aim of defeating and destroying what AQ considers to be an impure sect outside of Islam.

Theres a little more going on in the motivations of the "subversives" than simply fighting for the wrongs done to the Nicaraguans and/or other sins of American foreign policy. Theyre fighting *for* something, not merely against something.

Stop trying to pretend it doesn't count. What I'm pointing out is that four years ago, the oppression and savagery of that 'evil dictator' Saddam was a uniting force for the democratic 'God-fearing' Americans under their leader. The leadership appealed to the patriotism of the Americans to find in itself the motivation to "liberate" Iraqis - Operation Iraqi Freedom, as it was called. It doesn't mean that Americans are Iraqi Patriots - but that they got patriotic about Iraq

Tell you what, you win. Couldnt be bothered.

I thought it was obvious i was being sarcastic. I suppose it's hard to detect that on the internet. Anyway, sorry for offending anyone with my original post.

Dont apologise, I thought you did a fantastic job:)