Mission Accomplished
-
believer
They also hate us because we are free of their Sharia Law, because of our Judeo-Christian moral values, and because of our secularist representative republic government. The Islamofascists view the West in general and the United States in particular with disdain. They view our culture as an affront to their world view which is, of course, one that ALL people must choose to be Muslim or be relegated to infidel status at best - death at worst.dwccrew;762492 wrote:I still can't believe that some people believe that their hatred is based upon the notion that we are free. They hate us because of our support of Israel and our foreign policy in that region.
Not all Muslims are Islamofascists, but it is clear that a significantly large number are. Many who are not active in Islamofascism at least quietly support their more radical element through financial and moral support...or at the very least are fearful enough of their more radical element that they choose to keep a low profile on the matter.
True. Osama bin Laden was a man of high ideals.Writerbuckeye;762589 wrote:Yep. I'd believe anything OBL said. He never lied, I'm just sure of it. -
ptown_trojans_1
Ehh, saying al Qaeda hates us because of our freedoms makes little sense when you look at what the terrorists actually say. The reasons are a mixed bag really, depending on what particular issue that group or sub group finds most important to them. There is no one large movement, just a ton of medium to smaller movements that all have their own agenda's.
Like everything in life, no one broad saying fits reality.
OBL hated America for many reasons that included troops on Saudi soil, support for Israel, America's dominance in the world, support for Arab regimes (which now includes the new ones as well) and support for the Pakistani regime.
A nice piece on OBL by Peter Bergen, who I used to work under at New America. He knows his stuff as interviewed Bin Laden in 97.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-osama-bin-laden/2011/05/05/AFkG1rAG_story.html -
believer
Perhaps but al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. are Islamofascists nonetheless. The Nazis, the Mussolini fascists, and the Japanese militarists all had different agendas but they were united in wanting fascist world domination.ptown_trojans_1;762727 wrote:Ehh, saying al Qaeda hates us because of our freedoms makes little sense when you look at what the terrorists actually say. The reasons are a mixed bag really, depending on what particular issue that group or sub group finds most important to them. There is no one large movement, just a ton of medium to smaller movements that all have their own agenda's.
Make no mistake about it...radical fascist Islam exists and it's a definite threat. I don't give a damn how "splintered" the movement may be. -
ptown_trojans_1
believer;762751 wrote:Perhaps but al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. are Islamofascists nonetheless. The Nazis, the Mussolini fascists, and the Japanese militarists all had different agendas but they were united in wanting fascist world domination.
Make no mistake about it...radical fascist Islam exists and it's a definite threat. I don't give a damn how "splintered" the movement may be.
Not a fan of the term "fascist" considering the terrorists don't really follow fascism, but whatever.
The ideology runs the gambit really. Maybe 5 years ago the global Islamic rule was the goal, but now, if you listen to what they are really saying, it is more local and a restricted goals. They still have those stable sayings, but it is more specific now. There is no one leader now, one movement. It is deeply fractured and all over the place. Therefore, saying it is all blank or blank doesn't fit reality.
We disagree on this, which is fine, but I see the movement differently than you do. It is still a massive threat, that we agree on. -
believer
I understand what you're saying, but being "fractured" only means they have the influence and power to seek "restricted goals." Sugar coat it all you want but the deep, underlying purpose in all of radical Islam is the desire to see a world dominated by Sharia Law (IE: Islamic-style fascism).ptown_trojans_1;762763 wrote:We disagree on this, which is fine, but I see the movement differently than you do. It is still a massive threat, that we agree on. -
Footwedge
We have pitched a shutout....because we no longer have our pants down. According to Richard Clarke, our counterterroris czar during the Clinton and Bush 43 admins, nobody gave a shat about bin Ladin and his terrorism, Clarke warned Bush, Condi, Wolfowicz and the rest 6 weeks before 9-11. They told Clark to pound salt.O-Trap;761881 wrote:Actually, correlation doesn't prove causation, so there is. I'm not suggesting that we should have gone over, but once we're over there, it would be foolish to leave something that is ready to collapse.
I would honestly defer to the troops over there. If they are there because they're following orders, and they don't think they should be, then we should come home. If they believe that we're there to accomplish something, and that the reasons are good ones, I say we stay.
I'm not naive enough to think that I know all the reasons we're there, or that I know all the factors involved, which is why I haven't gotten that vigorously into this discussion. However, I would suggest that using the increased attempted attacks on our soil is a counterproductive argument thus far, because our defense has pitched a shutout to date against them since we've been over there.
O Trap....you claim to admire Ron Paul. Why? Paul is in my corner on this issue.....just as our CIA is in my corner. When you occupy foreign lands, steal their money by propping puppets in their lands, you will piss off people.
The number of successful (sic) terrorist attacks around the globe have tripled since 9-11....mostly on countries that are friendly towards us. Great Britain, Spain and India come to mind. -
Footwedge
And this perpetual pile of putrid propaganda keeps the warmongerers happy. And then you have the posters that say...."well, bin Ladin lied". Huh? Why in the fuck would he lie? I challenge believer, WB, and any other here to search the big ole internet....and find one lousy fuggin, stinkin quote from him stating that the reason he attacked America is because his terrorist group hates our freedoms.dwccrew;762492 wrote:I still can't believe that some people believe that their hatred is based upon the notion that we are free. They hate us because of our support of Israel and our foreign policy in that region.
I thought on this forum...if you make a claim...you need to source it. When I make a claim, I always source it....when asked to do so. -
dwccrew
Clearly OBL and AQ hated us because we are free. There is no other reason. Not because we support Israel or have had our hand in their politics for decades. And it is certainly not because we have had a strong military presence in that region for years. Just like Fish, WB and Believer said, they hate us because we are free. No other reason. :rolleyes:ptown_trojans_1;762727 wrote:Ehh, saying al Qaeda hates us because of our freedoms makes little sense when you look at what the terrorists actually say. The reasons are a mixed bag really, depending on what particular issue that group or sub group finds most important to them. There is no one large movement, just a ton of medium to smaller movements that all have their own agenda's.
Like everything in life, no one broad saying fits reality.
OBL hated America for many reasons that included troops on Saudi soil, support for Israel, America's dominance in the world, support for Arab regimes (which now includes the new ones as well) and support for the Pakistani regime.
A nice piece on OBL by Peter Bergen, who I used to work under at New America. He knows his stuff as interviewed Bin Laden in 97.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-osama-bin-laden/2011/05/05/AFkG1rAG_story.html
Footwedge;762964 wrote:And this perpetual pile of putrid propaganda keeps the warmongerers happy. And then you have the posters that say...."well, bin Ladin lied". Huh? Why in the fuck would he lie? I challenge believer, WB, and any other here to search the big ole internet....and find one lousy fuggin, stinkin quote from him stating that the reason he attacked America is because his terrorist group hates our freedoms.
I thought on this forum...if you make a claim...you need to source it. When I make a claim, I always source it....when asked to do so.
Obviously OBL lied when he claimed his reasoning for his terrorist actions were because of the US's support of Israel, military presence in the ME and role in the politics and propping up dictators in that region. What his real reason was that he hated us because of our freedoms. That makes much more sense.
-
Footwedge
Source that! Don't spew that kind of baloney without a true credible source. The propaganda that has permeated your brain is frightening, quite frankly.gut;762108 wrote:No, I undertand it quite well - and I mean, shit, lets just go back to the middle ages and blame the Crusades while we're at it. I disagree with you that it is motivated by politics, especially when they use radical Islam as their basis where, at it's twisted heart is the belief Muslims should rule the world and non-muslims are a second-tier lifeform.
It is 100% political. Just because they don't assign their politics to a specific state, doesn't change the fact that it's political. I challenge you as well...find one lousy fuggin quote from a Palestinian leader, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Quada or any other terrorist group and show me where this has to do with hating our freedoms or any other nonsense.Terrorism is not officially sanctioned - it can't be political in the sense it's not a political/sovereign tool. In that regard they are not that different from Timothy McVeigh's group. The leaders of such groups are almost always in it for the power and are not true believers - they ask people to be martyrs but when it comes to themself they hid and run. Speaking and acting like a politician while not using political means to your goals pretty much says it all.
And what "power" have these terrorist acts achieved? Bin Ladin lived in exile for over 10 years. He sure wielded power now didn't he? The only "economic policy" that they cite as having "kept them down" is our intervention of their democratic processes and then siphonimg off their oil profits....by putting in place despotic rulers that bow down to the West.I think it's naive not to acknowledge the problem runs much deeper than politics. Most every country has its own homegrown dissidents. It's not hard to find a group somewhere that disagrees with some political or economic policy. I reject the idea that if we were/are hands-off the middle east that terrorism magically disappears. It will just become US economic policy keeping them down - there will always be a "reason" because you have people looking for a reason. In a global world it's impossible not to give ammunition to these dissident groups. And what you really have are people gaining power by exploiting the poor and ignorant, and the Koran.
Throw in 700 military bases in their homelands, and you have created a dynamite factory.
If the US were a country....with only one marketable commodity (oil), and some foreignors placed their puppet to run my country, there would be millions of pissed off Americans as the wealth was stolen from under our noses. And let me tell ya....religion would play no fuckinn role in doing whatever it took to get the carpetbaggers the fuck out of my country.
The fact that this flies right over your head proves to me that you have very little history knowledge regarding the Middle East. -
Footwedge
Yaeh...the radical Islamites are gonna ovverrun the world with their tanks, bombers, and what? Their navy seals? LMAO. Gimme a break. You don't actuially believe that horse shit, do you?believer;762773 wrote:I understand what you're saying, but being "fractured" only means they have the influence and power to seek "restricted goals." Sugar coat it all you want but the deep, underlying purpose in all of radical Islam is the desire to see a world dominated by Sharia Law (IE: Islamic-style fascism). -
O-Trap
Footwedge;762957 wrote:We have pitched a shutout....because we no longer have our pants down. According to Richard Clarke, our counterterroris czar during the Clinton and Bush 43 admins, nobody gave a shat about bin Ladin and his terrorism, Clarke warned Bush, Condi, Wolfowicz and the rest 6 weeks before 9-11. They told Clark to pound salt.
O Trap....you claim to admire Ron Paul. Why? Paul is in my corner on this issue.....just as our CIA is in my corner. When you occupy foreign lands, steal their money by propping puppets in their lands, you will piss off people.
The number of successful (sic) terrorist attacks around the globe have tripled since 9-11....mostly on countries that are friendly towards us. Great Britain, Spain and India come to mind.
I'm actually in your corner on the issue as a whole. I'm just not sure I believe the whole "war lover" thing. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty who know that war is great for business, and so I don't at all doubt that there are plenty out there. I'm just not ready to say that's the only reason anyone would stay over there.
Also, I think I was in a particularly argumentative mood the day I initially replied.
-
gut
This is laughable. Implicit in your statement is that credible sources exist (this is obvious), but you reject it as propaganda. Bin Laden's letter to the US (which even if not written by him was widely circulated in the Arab world). Several Bin Laden interviews where there's a pretty clear and evident belief that you are either Islamic or you oppress it. Even throwing the whole UN under the bus, for supporting the US and Israel, and so by proxy essentially a war against the entire world.Footwedge;762981 wrote:Source that! Don't spew that kind of baloney without a true credible source. The propaganda that has permeated your brain is frightening, quite frankly.
Did Bin Laden justify the killing of innocent women and children? Did Bin Laden not say oil should be $1000 a barrel or whatever so the Middle East would have all the power (i.e. stop "stealing their oil")? Restoring Shariah as the supreme law?
These are unreasonable demands in a global world - to do as they please and be unopposed. There's clearly an implicit belief that only they are just and correct. And so the "politics" as you claim are just an extension of Islam as the center and top of the pyramid. Not propaganda at all.
And, I mean, do you honestly believe that religion had nothing to do with all of this? Do you not think Bin Laden used religion, both as a justification and recruiting tool, to wage war with anyone that opposed his interests? If you don't embrace/live Islam you oppress it, and at the core of all this is the oppression of Islam - political, economical, land, religion. The list is almost endless. Bin Laden in a '98 interview with CNN (I think) even cites the issue of reciprocity to justify the killing of innocents. -
gutFootwedge;762981 wrote:if the US were a country....with only one marketable commodity (oil), and some foreignors placed their puppet to run my country, there would be millions of pissed off Americans as the wealth was stolen from under our noses. And let me tell ya....religion would play no fuckinn role in doing whatever it took to get the carpetbaggers the fuck out of my country.
The fact that this flies right over your head proves to me that you have very little history knowledge regarding the Middle East.
No, the fact that you quote that ignorant bullshit and then talk about propaganda and flying over people's heads is beyond comical. Maybe you should learn some fundamental economics before trying to take on politics.
Religion has been used to exploit and mobilize the ignorant and poor since pretty much the beginning of time. I'm amazed that fact escapes you. -
majorspark
They place a lesser value on human life. Their main focus is civilian rather than military targets (because civilian targets are easier and they are cowards). I understand the military targets. During our revolution we were oppressed by the greatest military power the world had seen to date. The British empire had a large arsenal of modern weapons, their military was well trained in the use of those weapons, and the British navy was the most powerful in the world. On paper we were no match for their military might. We had no navy and no heavy weapons.Footwedge;761833 wrote:How exactly is there morality different? They are extremists that are at war with people they believe have stolen and robbed from them. They do not possess tanks, B-52's, or stealth equipment. They are war mongers....just as we are. They love war...just as we do. They use military tactics that suit their budget and their needs. The Irish Catholics used the same tactics. Or the Lehi Group, an Al Quada clone Israeli group of terrorists operated by none other than Menachin Begin in the 1930's.
Did we hijack British civilian commercial vessels, pack them with gun powder, and sail them into a civilian port in Britain and detonate it among other commercial vessels in the port? Did we hijack a British civilian commercial vessel, pack it with gun powder sail it along side a British warship and detonate it using the civilian passengers as a weapon of war? Did we send suicide shooters over to Great Britain to shoot up their pubs? How many American freedom fighters did you see sawing the heads off of perceived British nationals operating within the colonies?
You know the answer. We manned up and took it straight to our oppressors. We do not promote or ask our soldiers to be part of any suicide mission. Highly risky missions against military targets yes. Against civilians no way. I have respect for those that have opposed us in the field of battle. As men they confronted the greatest military power on the earth in the battlefield.
Granted the French navy came to our defense in our revolution. Lets be real the French would have done no such thing had we employed the immoral tactics that you give a pass to those that oppose our empire.
It shouldn't be. I wish it were not the case. We have been sucked into one too many great foreign wars at a great cost of life and treasure. If you look at the 20th century America for the first half of it maintained a foreign policy of isolationism and were not an imperialist power on the worlds stage. That first fifty years cost us over 600,000 dead and was very expensive. The second 50 was consumed by the cold war. More American intervention and it cost us about 90,000 dead. We can get into the cost economically in today's dollars.Footwedge;761833 wrote:So it's our job to police the whole goddam world because of some perceived notion that if we don't do it, rogues will? Bear in mind, we owe over 14 trillion dollars to countries, banks, and other entities...money that we don't have.
Its a nice idea. But that is as far as it will go.Footwedge;761833 wrote:Spark...you and I have had this discussion before. You believe that the human instict is to be barbaric. History has shown so far that you are correct. But here's an idea. How about no world hegemons running shit? Everybody takes care of themselves?
I thought I recalled a post that you were in your 50's. Not the first time I have been wrong. If we ever meet up. I owe you a beer.Footwedge;761833 wrote:I am not your dad's age...I am your age.
I realize the cost and expense. It is one one of the reasons bankrupting us. Not the only one. Like I mention in my post. That is coming to an end. We can no longer afford it. Its bought us about 70yrs of less world violence.Footwedge;761833 wrote:IIf your goals are what you have listed above, then you must understand that the cost of world dominance is bankrupting the future of your kids and grand kids. Our standard of living is digressing....and there is no stopping this economic runaway train to complete and total economic destruction. -
believer
That is correct. Despite the political posturing and constant crying by the peaceniks, the trillions of American taxpayer dollars spent over the past century maintaining - um - "world dominance" have actually purchased far more relative world peace and prosperity than the world at-large has ever known.majorspark;763025 wrote:Its bought us about 70yrs of less world violence.
But Footwedge is correct that it has finally bankrupted us. The sad thing is I cannot see any other world power with the acceptable moral courage and financial and military might to step up to the plate and relieve us of that world-wide responsibility.
The United States may be in the initial stages of fading as the world's dominant power, but rest assured the world will miss us when we're gone.
I knew you or someone like you would bring up this lame argument. Political/religious movements do not necessarily need to have access to bombers and tanks to be at threat. If a movement has enough popular support, it will finance and equip itself easily enough.Footwedge;762990 wrote:Yaeh...the radical Islamites are gonna ovverrun the world with their tanks, bombers, and what? Their navy seals? LMAO. Gimme a break. You don't actuially believe that horse shit, do you?
The Nazis were a very small group of fascist beer-drinking thugs just after WWI and quickly rose to acquire enough financial and military resources to nearly pull off world domination. Toss in religious fervor and you have a very volatile mix.
I never thought we'd see a 9-11 either but these extremists managed to kick us in the balls in our own backyard. So the mindset exists and it's very, very real.
For now you are free to laugh and scoff all you want, but if you do not believe that there is a significant number of Muslims who want to see a world dominated by the caliphate and its adherence to Sharia Law you are blindly naive. -
jhay78
Footwedge;761803 wrote:I am not defending Osama bin Ladin in any stretch. He is mass murderer. What I am saying is that that he gave specific reasons for his actions. These actions were political....and not religious...as you erroneously suggested. As for your "power and control" statement....I don't think that had anything to do with anything.
One of his reasons was the very presence of US troop on Saudi soil (during the first Gulf war)- we didn't invade Saudi Arabia, or set up a puppet government, etc. That is a religious argument and you know it.
What would Europe (and the rest of the world) look like if that was our policy during WWII? Just sayin . . .Footwedge;761833 wrote:
So it's our job to police the whole goddam world because of some perceived notion that if we don't do it, rogues will? Bear in mind, we owe over 14 trillion dollars to countries, banks, and other entities...money that we don't have. Spark...you and I have had this discussion before. You believe that the human instict is to be barbaric. History has shown so far that you are correct. But here's an idea. How about no world hegemons running shit? Everybody takes care of themselves?
dwccrew;762492 wrote: This is simply not true. Osama Bin Laden even stated that if the US removed its armies from the land of Mohammed that only then would there be peace. It was never about religion. Now I am not justifying OBL's actions at all, just stating what he was quoted as listing as the reason for his hatred towards the west. It was never because we are "free", it's because we have had a military and political influence in the ME for decades and it has backfired on us.
I still can't believe that some people believe that their hatred is based upon the notion that we are free. They hate us because of our support of Israel and our foreign policy in that region.
I still don't understand how that's viewed as a "non-religious" argument. -
jhay78
Maybe the "they hate our freedoms" argument is tired and overplayed, but religious freedom/freedom of conscience and Islam are the ultimate water/oil combination. Even moderate states who don't sponsor terrorism (at least openly) make it a crime to convert from Islam, punishable by death. Insulting the Quran/Mohammed- also punishable by death:
Maybe those stark differences between Muslim societies and ours are not the primary motivation behind terrorist attacks, but you CANNOT say it has no bearing whatsoever.Saudi Arabia – Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Bibles are illegal. Churches are illegal. Easter celebrations are illegal. It is punishable by death for a non-mulsim to enter the “holy” muslim cities of Medina and Mecca.
Yemen – Bans proselytizing by non-Muslims and forbids conversions. The Government does not allow the building of new non-Muslim places of worship.
Kuwait – Registration and licensing of religious groups. Members of religions not sanctioned in the Koran may not build places of worship. Prohibits organized religious education for religions other than Islam.
Egypt – Islam is the official state religion and primary source of legislation. Accordingly, religious practices that conflict with Islamic law are prohibited. Muslims may face legal problems if they convert to another faith. Requires non-Muslims to obtain what is now a presidential decree to build a place of worship.
Algeria – The law prohibits public assembly for purposes of practicing a faith other than Islam. Non-Islamic proselytizing is illegal, and the Government restricts the importation of non-Islamic literature for distribution. The country has passed the “Regulation of Religious Practice” law, which stipulates a punishment of two to five years’ imprisonment and heavy fines for anyone convicted of urging a Muslim to change his religion.
Syria – The constitution requires the president to be a Muslim and specifies that Islamic jurisprudence is a principal source of legislation. Sharing your Christian faith is discouraged as “
osing a threat to the relations among religious groups” and carries a penalty of up to life in prison. A Christian is not allowed to proselytize – ever. Churches who want to hold an extra service must get a government permit. Sermons are routinely monitored, as is church fundraising.
Jordan – Has the death penalty for any Muslim selling land to a Jew.
Sudan – Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death.
Pakistan – Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Bans proselytizing by non-Muslims. Christians regularly put in prison for charges of blasphemy. Islam is the state religion, and in a court of law the testimony of a Christian carries less weight than that of a Muslim. Section 295(c) of the Penal Code calls for a death sentence for anyone who defiles the name of the Prophet Muhammad and requires the testimony of four Muslims for a conviction. This fosters an environment in which Muslims can feel free to use intimidation and violence against religious minorities for personal gain. Also, if any criminal Muslim rape with any Christian female and then take plea that she has accepted Islam and marry with him. Such person is not culpable under Pakistani criminal law
Qatar – Islamic instruction is compulsory in public schools. The government regulates the publication, importation, and distribution of non-Islamic religious literature. The government continues to prohibit proselytizing of Muslims by non-Muslims.
Malaysia – Under Malaysian law, any convert to Christianity must apply to a shariah (Muslim law) court to legally renounce Islam. Many Christians prefer to remain silent converts rather than take their battle to the shariah courts, where apostasy or conversion out of Islam is punishable by whipping, fines, imprisonment and—in the most extreme application—death. In a country where Muslims account for more than half of the population, conversion from Islam is punished with a 5-year prison sentence and a $3,000 fine. A Malaysian Muslim who marries a non-Muslim and who converts the non-Muslim to Islam is rewarded with an apartment, a car, a one-time payment of $2,700, and a monthly stipend of $270.
The Maldives – In the island paradise visited by tens of thousands of tourists each year, Christianity is simply not tolerated. While local Christians – said to number around 300 out of a total population of 300,000 – do get together to worship, they do so at the risk of imprisonment or worse if discovered by the Muslim authorities. Bibles are banned, and tourists can be arrested for trying to bring them into the country. -
stlouiedipalmaptown_trojans_1;762727 wrote:Ehh, saying al Qaeda hates us because of our freedoms makes little sense when you look at what the terrorists actually say. The reasons are a mixed bag really, depending on what particular issue that group or sub group finds most important to them. There is no one large movement, just a ton of medium to smaller movements that all have their own agenda's.
Like everything in life, no one broad saying fits reality.
OBL hated America for many reasons that included troops on Saudi soil, support for Israel, America's dominance in the world, support for Arab regimes (which now includes the new ones as well) and support for the Pakistani regime.
A nice piece on OBL by Peter Bergen, who I used to work under at New America. He knows his stuff as interviewed Bin Laden in 97.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-osama-bin-laden/2011/05/05/AFkG1rAG_story.html
Peter Bergen was a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher last Friday. Interesting interview and interesting person. -
dwccrew
jhay78;763226 wrote:
I still don't understand how that's viewed as a "non-religious" argument.
It's non-religious in the sense that he never said he wanted to kill American's because they are Christian, he said he wants to kill Americans because they are in "his" homeland with "occupying forces". I'm not saying his argument is of sound logic, I am just re-itterating what OBL actually stated as the reason for his hatred towards the west.