The Orlando shooting and the motivation for Islamic terrorism...

[walkstall]

So, again you avoid all my points and myopically cling to us, Americans as the cause, neglecting the fact that they are killing Christians, beheading and burning them in crucifixion, and for no other reason than being Christians.
Or how about beheading their own for not following the koran.
Explain how the US plays a part in their wholesale slaughter of their own people. Hell, while you're at it, explain why Iran speaks publicly that they will wipe the US off the map.

Let me guess, you're an apologist Muscum, aren't you?

You could tell that in his first two posts. 

[Solar]

You could tell that in his first two posts.

Liberal guilt gave him away.

[walkstall]

Liberal guilt gave him away.

IF he thinks there so great why don't he move over there.  I am sure the religion of peace would be happy showing him there custom of removing his head. 

[Solar]

IF he thinks there so great why don't he move over there.  I am sure the religion of peace would be happy showing him there custom of removing his head.

iF HE KEEPS IT, THEY'LL TAX HIM THE GOING RATE FOR BEING AN INFIDEL.

[walkstall]

iF HE KEEPS IT, THEY'LL TAX HIM THE GOING RATE FOR BEING AN INFIDEL.

From GOC

[Solar]

From GOC

Oh now that's just silly, you can't use facts when dealing with libs...

[jrodefeld]

One point that has been made several times in replies to you that you seem to keep ignoring: muslins have been killing for a long time because that is who they are, that is what they are taught and what they believe, long before there was a United States. Maybe you can have your professor explain that one if he can take the time away from blaming the U.S.

Maybe you can answer this one, do you believe that the middle east countries have provided reasons for the U.S. to hate them? or does that only work one way?

Humans have been killing each other for a very long time.  For centuries, humans used Christianity as a pretext for killing during the Crusades.  Communists used their atheistic ideology to justify killing during much of the 20th century.  The justifications for human barbarity towards one another at any particular moment in history change.

Look, as an agnostic, I think all organized religions are problematic and lead people to do and believe irrational and sometimes immoral things.  I don't believe that if the United States withdrew all troops from the middle east and stopped bombing and intervening in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations, that all these groups would suddenly modernize, give women the right to vote, accept homosexuality and western values.  For the immediate future, different factions in the middle east will continue to fight and kill each other, their governments will continue to restrict the rights of women, and maintain a decidedly illiberal society.  This is true.

The key difference is that they will be killing each other and not us.  Their radicalism will be a problem that is contained to that region of the world, and we won't be a target for terrorist attacks any more.

Furthermore, if we do wish to see reforms within these societies, it is far more likely to occur if outside forces respect their national sovereignty.  Reforms have to come from within, organically.  Given the unbelievable extent of Western intervention in the Middle East for over half a century, we have scarcely given the moderate factions an opportunity to make any reforms to work out their own problems.

So to answer your question, terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS have given the United States, and every other part of the civilized world, every reason to hate and despise them.  Nothing I am saying should be seen as excusing terrorist attacks against civilians.  What makes these terrorist organizations so dangerous though is that their recruitment is bolstered by appealing to very real and legitimate grievances that the entire Arab world feel about US foreign policy. 

What we don't want if we are concerned about the safety of American citizens is to give an incentive for otherwise moderate and even sympathetic Middle Easterners to support ISIS or Al Qaeda.

[jrodefeld]

How do you explain the fact that Muslim mostly kill other Muslims, usually  other tribes or ethnicities. You miss the point entirely, most of these ISIS terrorist, Al Q'iea etc started out fighting those in power in their respective countries. It is about achieving power, control and establishing a world wide caliphate. The US and Great Britain and a few other countries stand in the way....it's never gonna happen while the US is top dog in the world economically or militarily....that's why the effort to undermine us, from within and without.

Okay, so US foreign policy in the Middle East has achieved what exactly over the past thirty years?  Are there more or fewer terrorist attacks against US citizens today than there were thirty years ago?

Yes, there are true believers who would like to see a world wide caliphate.  What do we care what irrational fantasies float around in the heads of madmen?  I'm sure Kim Jong Un would like to be dictator of the world as well.  Radical terrorist groups and Kim Jong Un don't have any chance in hell of defeating any first world nation militarily, so we don't have to entertain these fantasies as actual threats.

The effectiveness of terrorism as a political tool and military tactic, is that for it to be successful the victim nation needs to allow itself to be "terrorized" and over-react. 

We fulfilled all of Osama bin Laden's goals when we bled ourselves financially over the past fifteen years in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They can't beat us militarily but we can sure beat ourselves by being led into a quagmire that is, by definition, unwinnable.

Recruitment for terrorist organizations has exploded over the past fifteen years.  Do you think this recruitment was bolstered by US foreign policy or lessened?  All facts relevant to this discussion suggest that aggressive US foreign policy, military occupation, sanctions and bombing campaigns greatly enhance the power and influence of terrorist organizations in the Muslim world.

Acknowledging that US policy makes us less safe and re-assessing that policy, does not mean that we justify the actions of ISIS or any other terrorist group.  It is only smart to do that which makes your enemies weaker rather than that which makes them stronger.

[jrodefeld]

So, again you avoid all my points and myopically cling to us, Americans as the cause, neglecting the fact that they are killing Christians, beheading and burning them in crucifixion, and for no other reason than being Christians.
Or how about beheading their own for not following the koran.
Explain how the US plays a part in their wholesale slaughter of their own people. Hell, while you're at it, explain why Iran speaks publicly that they will wipe the US off the map.

Let me guess, you're an apologist Muscum, aren't you?

Let me ask you a very simple question.  Do you think that all human beings should be judged by the same ethical standard?  Surely you're not a liberal moral relativist, right?

If you, like me, believe in a consistent moral standard by which all human beings should be judged, then you have to look at terrorist attacks that kill innocent Americans and US imposed sanctions against Iraq during the 1990s that killed more than 500,000 women and children (and this on the low end of the estimates) through the same consistent moral prism.

I condemn all acts of aggression against peaceful people.  I am a libertarian anarchist after all and I view all human beings as self-owners with natural rights.  Your prejudice is clouding your judgment.  You are happy to condemn every inhuman atrocity committed by Muslim terrorists, yet you seem blind to the atrocities the US government has perpetrated against the Muslim world.  And whether or not you consider these societies "backwards" is immaterial.  Innocent children and women have been killed by the millions over the decades by US wars of aggression, puppet dictators, sanctions and drone bombings.

I know you get all agitated that I am somehow "blaming America" for pointing this out and holding US military personnel to the same moral standard as I do anyone else, but you ought to snap out of this simplistic framework.  I blame aggression.  I blame the human act of unprovoked violence against other humans.  Judged with a consistent moral standard.

I NEVER said that the US is responsible for all violence that Muslims commit against other Muslims.  What I am saying is that US foreign policy is largely responsible for why radical terrorist groups gain new recruits and launch suicide attacks against American civilians.  And that our foreign policy in the middle east over the past thirty years has created more terrorism and made Americans less safe as a result.  And, more fundamentally, it has been largely immoral judged on its own.  An unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation, regardless of what one thinks about the internal politics of that nation, is inherently immoral.

And, lastly, I want to say something about that supposed Iran quote about "wiping off the map".  It's funny to me that you cannot even get your phony talking points right.  The alleged quote was not that the United States should be wiped off the map but that Israel should be wiped off the map.  And even this was never said.  This has been a myth propagated by Neo-con warmongers, neo-liberal interventionists and AIPAC lobbyists who have been pushing propaganda against Iran for several decades.

Let me quote a reliable article on the subject to enlighten you:

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's president has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made.

On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism." Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster's title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.

Before we get to the infamous remark, it's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote – they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomenei, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office. 

The Actual Quote:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."

The Proof:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site

The Speech and Context:

While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism." One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran – the U.S. installed monarch

(2) The Soviet Union

(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise." This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

The Origin:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.

The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

Amid heated wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d'être to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.

It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA's translation changed. For instance, "map" was replaced with "earth." In some articles it was "The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth." or the similar "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth." The inconsistency of the IRNA's translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.

The Reaction:

The mistranslated "wiped off the map" quote attributed to Iran's president has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this false statement to the masses. Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis.

Following news of Iran's remark, condemnation was swift. British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "revulsion" and implied that it might be necessary to attack Iran. U.N. chief Kofi Annan cancelled his scheduled trip to Iran due to the controversy. Ariel Sharon demanded that Iran be expelled from the United Nations for calling for Israel's destruction. Shimon Peres, more than once, threatened to wipe Iran off the map. More recently, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned that Iran is "preparing another holocaust for the Jewish state" is calling for Ahmadinejad to be tried for war crimes for inciting genocide.

The artificial quote has also been subject to additional alterations. U.S. officials and media often take the liberty of dropping the "map" reference altogether, replacing it with the more acutely threatening phrase "wipe Israel off the face of the earth." Newspaper and magazine articles dutifully report Ahmadinejad has "called for the destruction of Israel." as do senior officials in the United States government.

President George W. Bush said the comments represented a "specific threat" to destroy Israel. In a March 2006 speech in Cleveland, Bush vowed he would resort to war to protect Israel from Iran, because, "the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our ally Israel." Former presidential advisor Richard Clarke told Australian TV that Iran "talks openly about destroying Israel." and insists, "The president of Iran has said repeatedly that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth." In an October 2006 interview with Amy Goodman, former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter referred to Ahmadinejad as "the idiot that comes out and says really stupid, vile things, such as, 'It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.'" The consensus is clear.

Confusing matters further, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pontificates rather than give a direct answer when questioned about the statement, such as in Lally Weymouth's Washington Post interview in September 2006:

"Q: Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

"A: We need to look at the scene in the Middle East – 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza –  what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.

"Q: Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?

"A: Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.

"Q: You've been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?

"A: What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago...

"Q: So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

"A: Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people."

The exchange is typical of Ahmadinejad's interviews with the American media. Predictably, both Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes and CNN's Anderson Cooper asked if he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." As usual, the question is thrown back in the reporter's face with his standard "Don't the Palestinians have rights?, etc." retort (which is never directly answered either). Yet he never confirms the "map" comment to be true. This did not prevent Anderson Cooper from referring to earlier portions of his interview after a commercial break and lying, "as he said earlier, he wants Israel wiped off the map."

Even if every media outlet in the world were to retract the mistranslated quote tomorrow, the major damage has already been done, providing the groundwork for the next phase of disinformation: complete character demonization. Ahmadinejad, we are told, is the next Hitler, a grave threat to world peace who wants to bring about a new Holocaust. According to some detractors, he not only wants to destroy Israel, but after that, he will nuke America, and then Europe! An October 2006 memo titled "Words of Hate: Iran's Escalating Threats" released by the powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC opens with the warning, "Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian leaders are issuing increasingly belligerent statements threatening to destroy the United States, Europe and Israel." These claims not only fabricate an unsubstantiated threat, but assume far more power than he actually possesses. Alarmists would be better off monitoring the statements of the ultra-conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the most power in Iran.

As Iran's U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi, complained to the Washington Post in a June 2006 letter:

"It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that 'We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.'"

The Israeli government has milked every drop of the spurious quote to its supposed advantage. In her September 2006 address to the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni accused Iran of working to nuke Israel and bully the world. "They speak proudly and openly of their desire to 'wipe Israel off the map.' And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective to imperil the region and threaten the world." Addressing the threat in December, a fervent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inadvertently disclosed that his country already possesses nuclear weapons: "We have never threatened any nation with annihilation. Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

Media Irresponsibility:

On December 13, 2006, more than a year after The World Without Zionism conference, two leading Israeli newspapers, the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, published reports of a renewed threat from Ahmadinejad. The Jerusalem Post's headline was Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out', while Haaretz posted the title Ahmadinejad at Holocaust conference: Israel will 'soon be wiped out'.

Where did they get their information? It turns out that both papers, like most American and western media, rely heavily on write ups by news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters as a source for their articles. Sure enough, their sources are in fact December 12th articles by Reuter's Paul Hughes [Iran president says Israel's days are numbered], and the AP's Ali Akbar Dareini [Iran President: Israel will be wiped out].   

The first five paragraphs of the Haaretz article, credited to "Haaretz Service and Agencies." are plagiarized almost 100% from the first five paragraphs of the Reuters piece. The only difference is that Haaretz changed "the Jewish state" to "Israel" in the second paragraph, otherwise they are identical.

The Jerusalem Post article by Herb Keinon pilfers from both the Reuters and AP stories. Like Haaretz, it uses the following Ahmadinejad quote without attribution: ["Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added]. Another passage apparently relies on an IRNA report:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA. 

He said elections should be held among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Once again, the first sentence above was wholly plagiarized from the AP article. The second sentence was also the same, except "He called for elections" became "He said elections should be held..."

It gets more interesting.

The quote used in the original AP article and copied in the Jerusalem Post article supposedly derives from the IRNA. If true, this can easily be checked.

There you will discover the actual IRNA quote was:

"As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated."

Compare this to the alleged IRNA quote reported by the Associated Press:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom."

In the IRNA's actual report, the Zionist regime will vanish just as the Soviet Union disappeared. Vanish. Disappear. In the dishonest AP version, the Zionist regime will be "wiped out." And how will it be wiped out? "The same way the Soviet Union was." Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements.

What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP deliberately alters an IRNA quote to sound more threatening. The Israeli media not only repeats the fake quote but also steals the original authors' words. The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self defense, based on the misinformation.

This scenario mirrors the kind of false claims that led to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, a war now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake. And yet the Bush administration and the compliant corporate media continue to marinate in propaganda and speculation about attacking Iraq's much larger and more formidable neighbor, Iran. Most of this rests on the unproven assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the lie that Iran has vowed to physically destroy Israel. Given its scope and potentially disastrous outcome, all this amounts to what is arguably the rumor of the century.

Iran's president has written two rather philosophical letters to America. In his first letter, he pointed out that "History shows us that oppressive and cruel governments do not survive." With this statement, Ahmadinejad has also projected the outcome of his own backwards regime, which will likewise "vanish from the page of time."

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

[jrodefeld]

Liberal guilt gave him away.

Do you understand that I am not a leftist in any way?  I am a libertarian anarchist which means I believe in individual self-ownership, universal non-aggression and the complete abolition of the State.

It is not "guilt" that informs my beliefs but a consistent moral standard by which I just all human action.  I guess that would be hard for a liberal moral-relativist like you to understand though.

On a serious note, do you understand that by judging US military action and the actions of the Islamic world by two separate standards you have accepted the liberal view that morals are entirely relative?  Does this not give you pause to reconsider your views?  I guess cognitive dissonance never stopped a jingoist conservative "America-first" cheerleader.

[jrodefeld]

From GOC

I get the feeling that some of you seem to think that I am some sort of liberal, which is decidedly NOT the case.  The Orlando shooting wasn't about Islam, but it also wasn't about gun control either.  Gun control would not have prevented this shooting.  Here is something you conservatives will probably agree with.  All but 2 of the mass shootings in the United States over the past fifty or so years took place in a so-called "gun free zone", where people are prevented by law from carrying guns or defending themselves.

I'm not saying this nightclub should or shouldn't have had guns to deter crime, but it should have been the prerogative of the property owner to determine how best to defend his or her clientele.  By advertising that certain spaces are devoid of guns, as explicit US law does, this creates a space where would-be mass murderers know they won't be met with much resistance and they can reek maximum havoc before the police arrive.

These statistics are overwhelming, but the media as is predictable, dropped the ball yet again.  But I blame both the liberal AND the conservative media.  Donald Trump is out there hectoring Hilary and Obama to "say Radical Islamic Terrorism" as if this makes any fucking difference. 

What is so incredibly bizarre to me is that even when terrorist attackers explicitly say why they are committing a terrorist attack, conservatives choose to ignore them or choose not to believe them.  Why do they continually cite grievances about US foreign policy killing innocent Muslim civilians?  Why wouldn't they just say that they are killing the infidels because we allow women to vote, or don't follow the teachings of Mohammed?

In this particular case, you have a 29 year old man, born in the United States, who obviously did not follow the tenets of Islam.  I doubt he ever read the Quran all the way through.  He was a gay man, so he didn't take seriously Islam's prohibitions against homosexuality.

What reason do you have to discount his explicitly stated beliefs that he wanted the US to stop bombing Afghanistan?  Why would you question my conviction, based on these case studies, that people would be less likely to be radicalized if we didn't provide radical terrorist groups these foreign policy atrocities to proselytize with?

[jrodefeld]

When someone uses the term 'objective news' and is referring to the LA Times ... I know that any further discussion would be hopeless!

I can't help you.

Are you serious?!  I realize that most news outlets have biases but judgment must be rendered based on the content of a particular news piece.  Quality journalism can come from many different sources.  You realize the piece I cited was not an Op-Ed, right?

And the part I cited was about an eye witness who heard what Omar Mateen said on his cell phone while he hid in the bathroom of the night club.  This piece of information was reported from numerous different outlets.  The eye witness reported that Mateen told whoever he was talking to on the phone that he attacked the nightclub to get Americans to "stop bombing his country".  Those are his words.

I don't care if the LA Times has a liberal bias or any other sort of bias.  The facts are the Mateen said those things.  He explicitly stated what his motivation was for his shooting rampage.

What you should do is seek truth, rather than judge the validity of every piece of journalism by whatever ideological bias the reporter, or the organization that hired him or her, happen to have.  There are very conservative journalists and organizations that I think do very good reporting.  And there are left-wing news outlets that generally do good and important reporting.  For the record, I tend to think most of the mainstream outlets are generally trash but in this case, this was an incident of very clear journalism that was reported widely across the ideological spectrum.

[supsalemgr]

What relevance does this question have?  There are many factors that can motivate one people to attack and invade another.  In our modern era though, the problem we are concerned with is terrorism, and more specifically suicide terrorism.  And, as Robert Pape has demonstrated, virtually all modern instances of suicide terrorism have been motivated by anger and resentment over a foreign military occupation.  There is no military in the world that can challenge the United States, but terrorism as a tactic has proven to be the most successful way to lash out against a much more powerful adversary. 

Be more specific about why you are asking this question.  You obviously have a point to make, so go ahead and make it.

Your entire point seems to be Christians and the west are responsible for the actions of Muslims. My question is pretty straight forward. What did Christians and the west do to motivate the actions to invade and enslave southern Europe?

[Possum]

Humans have been killing each other for a very long time.  For centuries, humans used Christianity as a pretext for killing during the Crusades.  Communists used their atheistic ideology to justify killing during much of the 20th century.  The justifications for human barbarity towards one another at any particular moment in history change.

Look, as an agnostic, I think all organized religions are problematic and lead people to do and believe irrational and sometimes immoral things.  I don't believe that if the United States withdrew all troops from the middle east and stopped bombing and intervening in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations, that all these groups would suddenly modernize, give women the right to vote, accept homosexuality and western values.  For the immediate future, different factions in the middle east will continue to fight and kill each other, their governments will continue to restrict the rights of women, and maintain a decidedly illiberal society.  This is true.

The key difference is that they will be killing each other and not us.  Their radicalism will be a problem that is contained to that region of the world, and we won't be a target for terrorist attacks any more.

Furthermore, if we do wish to see reforms within these societies, it is far more likely to occur if outside forces respect their national sovereignty.  Reforms have to come from within, organically.  Given the unbelievable extent of Western intervention in the Middle East for over half a century, we have scarcely given the moderate factions an opportunity to make any reforms to work out their own problems.

So to answer your question, terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS have given the United States, and every other part of the civilized world, every reason to hate and despise them.  Nothing I am saying should be seen as excusing terrorist attacks against civilians.  What makes these terrorist organizations so dangerous though is that their recruitment is bolstered by appealing to very real and legitimate grievances that the entire Arab world feel about US foreign policy. 

What we don't want if we are concerned about the safety of American citizens is to give an incentive for otherwise moderate and even sympathetic Middle Easterners to support ISIS or Al Qaeda.

Well maybe a little progress has been made, your first few posts concentrated on how terrorism was the U.S. fault, at least now we learn even without the U.S., muslins would still be killing. However you said they would be killing each other, which is true, but they would still be killing everywhere else too. After hundreds of years of killing its kinda hard to quit cold turkey. The links are too many to list again but are there in the other posts if you care.

[Billy's bayonet]

Okay, so US foreign policy in the Middle East has achieved what exactly over the past thirty years?  Are there more or fewer terrorist attacks against US citizens today than there were thirty years ago?

Yes, there are true believers who would like to see a world wide caliphate.  What do we care what irrational fantasies float around in the heads of madmen?  I'm sure Kim Jong Un would like to be dictator of the world as well.  Radical terrorist groups and Kim Jong Un don't have any chance in hell of defeating any first world nation militarily, so we don't have to entertain these fantasies as actual threats.

The effectiveness of terrorism as a political tool and military tactic, is that for it to be successful the victim nation needs to allow itself to be "terrorized" and over-react. 

Recruitment for terrorist organizations has exploded over the past fifteen years.  Do you think this recruitment was bolstered by US foreign policy or lessened?[/b]

Acknowledging that US policy makes us less safe and re-assessing that policy, does not mean that we justify the actions of ISIS or any other terrorist group.

1. Of course there are more terror attack NOW than 30 years ago, 30 years ago we had an aggressive security and law enforcement policy, plus we had Presidents that weren't trying to facilitate the destruction of America. Then again 30 years ago the INTERNET was something new and not being used in cyber terrorism and RECRUITMENT. Plus the national conciousness wouldn't allow it. NOw with a President that comments on Ramadan instead of D Day anniversary what do you expect?

2.Irrational fantasies play out to 50 people killed in a bar and 19 fanatics flying airplanes into buildings killing 3,000 people. We should just ignore this and shrug it off right?

3. How should we react to terrorist attacks? (this should be good folks.... )

4. Once again I think terrorist recruitment has been facilitated by the internet and by the facilitation of the current US Govt administration, importing thousands of Syrian refugee's and letting down our guard on the Southern border to allow infiltration is more of an incentive than US Policy. WHEN YOU INVITE THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR TEA AND CAKES WHAT TYPE OF MESSAGE ARE YOU SENDING YOUR ENEMY?

5. Current US Policy is not making us or the rest of the world safe, it encourages those who wish to harm us and apologizes to radical Islam....won't even use the words....