I've posted on these forums a considerable while ago, but I'd like to get a sense of the conservative view on the recent Orlando terrorist attack at the gay nightclub and about terrorism in general and the so-called "War on Terror" in particular.
I am a libertarian anarchist, also sometimes referred to as "voluntaryist", just so you are reminded of my ideological persuasion.
What's left out of this discussion about the Orlando shooter was a key piece of information about his motivation, which was reported in the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-20160614-snap-story.html
QuoteAt a news conference Tuesday at Florida Hospital in Orlando, one survivor, Patience Carter, described cowering with two friends inside a handicapped bathroom stall at the club while Mateen stood nearby, chatting. Among other things, she said, he announced: "This is about my country."
Mateen was born in New York to Afghan immigrants. Although he was a U.S. citizen, he appeared to be talking about Afghanistan.
"He said that the reason why he was doing this was he wanted America to stop bombing his country," Carter said.
Libertarians have always maintained that the motivations for Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States have always been about our foreign policy. It is NOT about the religion of Islam. Al Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS have been primarily motivated by anger and resentment about US interventions, drone bombings, nation building and general disregard for the corpses, numbering in the millions, of Arab Muslims caused by our military excursions into the Middle East over the past several decades.
This is not to say that, absent our meddling into the affairs of middle eastern nations, that radical Islamic elements would disappear. But attacks against the United States would almost certainly disappear. The problem of radical Islam would become an internal problem for moderate Muslims in the region to deal with, or not deal with. It would no longer be our concern.
Robert Pape has studied the motivations for suicide terrorism and his conclusion is that this war is about political goals, not religious goals. There is a strategic objective that Islamic terrorists seek through the use of terrorism. They seek to change our foreign policy through generating fear of civilian deaths among the democratic populace of the occupying nation. The goal is that people end up realizing that the military occupation of foreign nations is not worth the resulting threat to civilian safety from the terrorist response to said occupation and that people rise up and make their leaders change their policy, withdrawing troops, lifting sanctions and so forth.
See Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism".
This recent Orlando shooting is yet another example of blowback. Our so-called "War on Terrorism" and the preceding decades of sanctions, bombs, and the overthrow of elected leaders in the middle east has, and will continue, to directly result in the deaths of American civilians.
If you support these military interventions you must share some of the culpability for the blowback that has predictably resulted from those ill-conceived actions.
I'd just like to engage with a conservative audience regarding the Orlando terrorist attack, the motivations for terrorism, your views on Robert Pape's work and how you feel about US foreign policy, specifically in regard to the Middle East, nation building, drone bombings and so forth.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 01:48:04 AM
I've posted on these forums a considerable while ago, but I'd like to get a sense of the conservative view on the recent Orlando terrorist attack at the gay nightclub and about terrorism in general and the so-called "War on Terror" in particular.
I am a libertarian anarchist, also sometimes referred to as "voluntaryist", just so you are reminded of my ideological persuasion.
What's left out of this discussion about the Orlando shooter was a key piece of information about his motivation, which was reported in the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-20160614-snap-story.html
Libertarians have always maintained that the motivations for Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States have always been about our foreign policy. It is NOT about the religion of Islam. Al Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS have been primarily motivated by anger and resentment about US interventions, drone bombings, nation building and general disregard for the corpses, numbering in the millions, of Arab Muslims caused by our military excursions into the Middle East over the past several decades.
This is not to say that, absent our meddling into the affairs of middle eastern nations, that radical Islamic elements would disappear. But attacks against the United States would almost certainly disappear. The problem of radical Islam would become an internal problem for moderate Muslims in the region to deal with, or not deal with. It would no longer be our concern.
Robert Pape has studied the motivations for suicide terrorism and his conclusion is that this war is about political goals, not religious goals. There is a strategic objective that Islamic terrorists seek through the use of terrorism. They seek to change our foreign policy through generating fear of civilian deaths among the democratic populace of the occupying nation. The goal is that people end up realizing that the military occupation of foreign nations is not worth the resulting threat to civilian safety from the terrorist response to said occupation and that people rise up and make their leaders change their policy, withdrawing troops, lifting sanctions and so forth.
See Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism".
This recent Orlando shooting is yet another example of blowback. Our so-called "War on Terrorism" and the preceding decades of sanctions, bombs, and the overthrow of elected leaders in the middle east has, and will continue, to directly result in the deaths of American civilians.
If you support these military interventions you must share some of the culpability for the blowback that has predictably resulted from those ill-conceived actions.
I'd just like to engage with a conservative audience regarding the Orlando terrorist attack, the motivations for terrorism, your views on Robert Pape's work and how you feel about US foreign policy, specifically in regard to the Middle East, nation building, drone bombings and so forth.
Sounds like another article which blames us again, seems like I have heard this before.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 01:48:04 AM
I've posted on these forums a considerable while ago, but I'd like to get a sense of the conservative view on the recent Orlando terrorist attack at the gay nightclub and about terrorism in general and the so-called "War on Terror" in particular.
I am a libertarian anarchist, also sometimes referred to as "voluntaryist", just so you are reminded of my ideological persuasion.
What's left out of this discussion about the Orlando shooter was a key piece of information about his motivation, which was reported in the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-20160614-snap-story.html
Libertarians have always maintained that the motivations for Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States have always been about our foreign policy. It is NOT about the religion of Islam. Al Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS have been primarily motivated by anger and resentment about US interventions, drone bombings, nation building and general disregard for the corpses, numbering in the millions, of Arab Muslims caused by our military excursions into the Middle East over the past several decades.
This is not to say that, absent our meddling into the affairs of middle eastern nations, that radical Islamic elements would disappear. But attacks against the United States would almost certainly disappear. The problem of radical Islam would become an internal problem for moderate Muslims in the region to deal with, or not deal with. It would no longer be our concern.
Robert Pape has studied the motivations for suicide terrorism and his conclusion is that this war is about political goals, not religious goals. There is a strategic objective that Islamic terrorists seek through the use of terrorism. They seek to change our foreign policy through generating fear of civilian deaths among the democratic populace of the occupying nation. The goal is that people end up realizing that the military occupation of foreign nations is not worth the resulting threat to civilian safety from the terrorist response to said occupation and that people rise up and make their leaders change their policy, withdrawing troops, lifting sanctions and so forth.
See Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism".
This recent Orlando shooting is yet another example of blowback. Our so-called "War on Terrorism" and the preceding decades of sanctions, bombs, and the overthrow of elected leaders in the middle east has, and will continue, to directly result in the deaths of American civilians.
If you support these military interventions you must share some of the culpability for the blowback that has predictably resulted from those ill-conceived actions.
I'd just like to engage with a conservative audience regarding the Orlando terrorist attack, the motivations for terrorism, your views on Robert Pape's work and how you feel about US foreign policy, specifically in regard to the Middle East, nation building, drone bombings and so forth.
Are you fuckin serious, our fault?
Learn some damned history, these animals have been enslaving people since before the 7th century, our own history shows our first encounters with these animals as a nation was due to their incursions over our merchant shipping lanes. (Barbary pirates), Jefferson. Are you afraid of what you might learn?
Your view of the world is upside fuckin down!
Agree with you absolutely. Islamic terrorists' motives deal more with their intention to change foreign courses of the non-Islamic countries (USA in the first run) rather than with their religious agenda. Religion is only a cover to disguise true aims. The Orlando shooting is just the case.
As for the foreign line of the State Dep. it seems to be rather a huge irritant for Islamic world. I guess Muslims see the so called democratic drive of the USA in the Middle east as a grandiose threat to their safety, to Islam, to their culture and their whole existence as independent Islamic states ...you know.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 01:48:04 AM
I've posted on these forums a considerable while ago, but I'd like to get a sense of the conservative view on the recent Orlando terrorist attack at the gay nightclub and about terrorism in general and the so-called "War on Terror" in particular.
I am a libertarian anarchist, also sometimes referred to as "voluntaryist", just so you are reminded of my ideological persuasion.
What's left out of this discussion about the Orlando shooter was a key piece of information about his motivation, which was reported in the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-20160614-snap-story.html
Libertarians have always maintained that the motivations for Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States have always been about our foreign policy. It is NOT about the religion of Islam. Al Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS have been primarily motivated by anger and resentment about US interventions, drone bombings, nation building and general disregard for the corpses, numbering in the millions, of Arab Muslims caused by our military excursions into the Middle East over the past several decades.
This is not to say that, absent our meddling into the affairs of middle eastern nations, that radical Islamic elements would disappear. But attacks against the United States would almost certainly disappear. The problem of radical Islam would become an internal problem for moderate Muslims in the region to deal with, or not deal with. It would no longer be our concern.
Robert Pape has studied the motivations for suicide terrorism and his conclusion is that this war is about political goals, not religious goals. There is a strategic objective that Islamic terrorists seek through the use of terrorism. They seek to change our foreign policy through generating fear of civilian deaths among the democratic populace of the occupying nation. The goal is that people end up realizing that the military occupation of foreign nations is not worth the resulting threat to civilian safety from the terrorist response to said occupation and that people rise up and make their leaders change their policy, withdrawing troops, lifting sanctions and so forth.
See Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism".
This recent Orlando shooting is yet another example of blowback. Our so-called "War on Terrorism" and the preceding decades of sanctions, bombs, and the overthrow of elected leaders in the middle east has, and will continue, to directly result in the deaths of American civilians.
If you support these military interventions you must share some of the culpability for the blowback that has predictably resulted from those ill-conceived actions.
I'd just like to engage with a conservative audience regarding the Orlando terrorist attack, the motivations for terrorism, your views on Robert Pape's work and how you feel about US foreign policy, specifically in regard to the Middle East, nation building, drone bombings and so forth.
I am a down home conservative country boy, sometimes referred to as an SOB.
So when a bully on the playground comes and takes your lunch you have no problem with that day after day.
Quote from: s3779m on June 15, 2016, 03:57:13 AM
Sounds like another article which blames us again, seems like I have heard this before.
What do you mean by "us"? I draw a sharp and distinct line between myself and other peaceful American citizens and the US government. The neo-cons, the Progressives, the defense contractors, AIPAC, and others who have launched these wars in the middle east are the ones who should be blamed. It is "they", not "us". You are a conservative yet you think of government as "us"?
The article I cited was not ideological, it was just objective news. I am informing you about the reality of the motivations for these terrorist attacks. They come right out and say what they are fighting about.
If you want to keep supporting an interventionist foreign policy, drone bombings and the like, then the price you have to pay is perpetual terrorist attacks against civilians such as what happened in Orlando. This is called "blowback".
There is no excuse for the targeting of civilians ever. I am not excusing terrorist attacks. What I am saying is that terrorism is a political tool that is resorted to by desperate people who have no other way of fighting back. A sane anti-terrorism strategy would be to remove the incentive for recruitment. Remove the antagonizing element by following a non-interventionist foreign policy where we mind our own business.
Quote from: Solar on June 15, 2016, 05:36:33 AM
Are you fuckin serious, our fault?
Learn some damned history, these animals have been enslaving people since before the 7th century, our own history shows our first encounters with these animals as a nation was due to their incursions over our merchant shipping lanes. (Barbary pirates), Jefferson. Are you afraid of what you might learn?
Your view of the world is upside fuckin down!
Like I said before, I didn't say "our" fault. Explaining and understanding the motivations for a criminal attack doesn't excuse an attack against civilians. And if you are trying to fight against crime and keep people safe, then removing the incentives for certain kinds of criminal behavior is wise.
Do me a favor and watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Dd6mtZA5k
This is a lecture given by Robert Pape, who I mentioned earlier. He has studied suicide terrorism more than anyone else. He is the worlds leading expert on the subject. He came to the conclusion based on his extensive research, that suicide terrorism is motivated by foreign occupation. Do you know which group engaged in more suicide terrorist attacks than any other? The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. They were essentially an atheist Marxist group who used suicide terrorism as a political strategy against a foreign occupier.
What Pape also found was that when the foreign occupier leaves, the incidents of suicide terrorism virtually vanish.
I know you think that Muslims are some sort of sub-human "animals", but consider for a minute what it would be like to be on the receiving end of US foreign policy in the middle east. What if your entire family was murdered by a drone during a wedding ceremony? What if you elected a government only to have the US overthrow this government and install a puppet dictator that is a savage tyrant? What if the US government assumed the authority to virtually shut down your economy through crippling sanctions and you couldn't even import the medical supplies and food necessary to keep your family alive?
Setting aside the merits or de-merits of Muslim culture in the middle east, any rational person would be angry and want to seek revenge if they were subject to such atrocities by an occupying force. From this background of constant US meddling, radical elements gain direct or tacit support and approval from the general population when they promise to fight back against the perpetrators of these atrocities.
We have to look at things from a consistent moral framework. If you are going to (correctly) say that ISIS beheading people is barbaric and evil, you must equally condemn US drone strikes that kill innocent civilians.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 04:20:16 PM
What do you mean by "us"? I draw a sharp and distinct line between myself and other peaceful American citizens and the US government. The neo-cons, the Progressives, the defense contractors, AIPAC, and others who have launched these wars in the middle east are the ones who should be blamed. It is "they", not "us". You are a conservative yet you think of government as "us"?
The article I cited was not ideological, it was just objective news. I am informing you about the reality of the motivations for these terrorist attacks. They come right out and say what they are fighting about.
If you want to keep supporting an interventionist foreign policy, drone bombings and the like, then the price you have to pay is perpetual terrorist attacks against civilians such as what happened in Orlando. This is called "blowback".
There is no excuse for the targeting of civilians ever. I am not excusing terrorist attacks. What I am saying is that terrorism is a political tool that is resorted to by desperate people who have no other way of fighting back. A sane anti-terrorism strategy would be to remove the incentive for recruitment. Remove the antagonizing element by following a non-interventionist foreign policy where we mind our own business.
Read your history, muslins have been killing long before there was a United States. To blame terrorist attacks by muslims which kill U.S. citizens on the U.S. is insane and part of the damn problem. Blaming the victim is nothing but a old liberal trick.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 04:35:57 PM
Like I said before, I didn't say "our" fault. Explaining and understanding the motivations for a criminal attack doesn't excuse an attack against civilians. And if you are trying to fight against crime and keep people safe, then removing the incentives for certain kinds of criminal behavior is wise.
Do me a favor and watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Dd6mtZA5k
This is a lecture given by Robert Pape, who I mentioned earlier. He has studied suicide terrorism more than anyone else. He is the worlds leading expert on the subject. He came to the conclusion based on his extensive research, that suicide terrorism is motivated by foreign occupation. Do you know which group engaged in more suicide terrorist attacks than any other? The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. They were essentially an atheist Marxist group who used suicide terrorism as a political strategy against a foreign occupier.
What Pape also found was that when the foreign occupier leaves, the incidents of suicide terrorism virtually vanish.
I know you think that Muslims are some sort of sub-human "animals", but consider for a minute what it would be like to be on the receiving end of US foreign policy in the middle east. What if your entire family was murdered by a drone during a wedding ceremony? What if you elected a government only to have the US overthrow this government and install a puppet dictator that is a savage tyrant? What if the US government assumed the authority to virtually shut down your economy through crippling sanctions and you couldn't even import the medical supplies and food necessary to keep your family alive?
Setting aside the merits or de-merits of Muslim culture in the middle east, any rational person would be angry and want to seek revenge if they were subject to such atrocities by an occupying force. From this background of constant US meddling, radical elements gain direct or tacit support and approval from the general population when they promise to fight back against the perpetrators of these atrocities.
We have to look at things from a consistent moral framework. If you are going to (correctly) say that ISIS beheading people is barbaric and evil, you must equally condemn US drone strikes that kill innocent civilians.
You are nothing more than a liberal appeaser unwilling to accept the reality that a people whom of which follow a political ideology disguised as a religion want to enslave what they claim to be subhuman, 'infidels'.
No, I will not watch some moron appeaser speak bull shit, no, I'll heed the words of Jefferson and his through thought to refuse surrender to these fuckin animals.
I hope a little history lesson opens your eyes...
In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to Great Britain. They asked this 'diplomat' by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the ambassador) replied that Islam:
"Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."Congress authorized Jefferson to have the US ships seize all vessels and goods that belonged to the Pasha and anything else deemed necessary. As they saw the US was actually committed to the fight, Algiers and Tunis quickly abandoned the war and allegiance to Tripoli. Obviously, the US won the war.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 01:48:04 AM
I've posted on these forums a considerable while ago, but I'd like to get a sense of the conservative view on the recent Orlando terrorist attack at the gay nightclub and about terrorism in general and the so-called "War on Terror" in particular.
I am a libertarian anarchist, also sometimes referred to as "voluntaryist", just so you are reminded of my ideological persuasion.
What's left out of this discussion about the Orlando shooter was a key piece of information about his motivation, which was reported in the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-20160614-snap-story.html
Libertarians have always maintained that the motivations for Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States have always been about our foreign policy. It is NOT about the religion of Islam. Al Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS have been primarily motivated by anger and resentment about US interventions, drone bombings, nation building and general disregard for the corpses, numbering in the millions, of Arab Muslims caused by our military excursions into the Middle East over the past several decades.
This is not to say that, absent our meddling into the affairs of middle eastern nations, that radical Islamic elements would disappear. But attacks against the United States would almost certainly disappear. The problem of radical Islam would become an internal problem for moderate Muslims in the region to deal with, or not deal with. It would no longer be our concern.
Robert Pape has studied the motivations for suicide terrorism and his conclusion is that this war is about political goals, not religious goals. There is a strategic objective that Islamic terrorists seek through the use of terrorism. They seek to change our foreign policy through generating fear of civilian deaths among the democratic populace of the occupying nation. The goal is that people end up realizing that the military occupation of foreign nations is not worth the resulting threat to civilian safety from the terrorist response to said occupation and that people rise up and make their leaders change their policy, withdrawing troops, lifting sanctions and so forth.
See Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism".
This recent Orlando shooting is yet another example of blowback. Our so-called "War on Terrorism" and the preceding decades of sanctions, bombs, and the overthrow of elected leaders in the middle east has, and will continue, to directly result in the deaths of American civilians.
If you support these military interventions you must share some of the culpability for the blowback that has predictably resulted from those ill-conceived actions.
I'd just like to engage with a conservative audience regarding the Orlando terrorist attack, the motivations for terrorism, your views on Robert Pape's work and how you feel about US foreign policy, specifically in regard to the Middle East, nation building, drone bombings and so forth.
They share the same motivation as the "progressives." They hate.
Quote from: Red Steel on June 15, 2016, 04:59:10 PM
They share the same motivation as the "progressives." They hate.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
True, but still funny.
Here we go with another Liberal Tarian who blames the US for the worlds ills....or rather us "Neo Cons". These people just don't get it. The world is a bad place full of bad people who hate the USA because they are taught to do so.
'We" did not create terrorism or terrorists....these people create themselves, include Usama Bin Laudin in that.....he has always hated the US and refused US aide in Afghanistan. If anyone is responsible for UBL and the rise of middle east terrorism it is the former soviet Union who set things into motion with the invasion of Afghanistan and currently what is left of the USSR, ie Russia who empowers Iran towards nuclear arms.
Libral-tarian Idiots like Ron Paul and his Son Rand should know better but since they don't that's why they get 1% of the vote.
Last; Muslim immigrants don't assimilate well into our culture, this guy had a whole host of issues and was messed up in the head to begin with, add to that the current anti American counter culture fostered by the leftists to include the Govt and this is the result.
Expect more of the same...a lot of these shootings are Copy Cat types of deals.
Quote from: Solar on June 15, 2016, 04:55:56 PM
You are nothing more than a liberal appeaser unwilling to accept the reality that a people whom of which follow a political ideology disguised as a religion want to enslave what they claim to be subhuman, 'infidels'.
No, I will not watch some moron appeaser speak bull shit, no, I'll heed the words of Jefferson and his through thought to refuse surrender to these fuckin animals.
I hope a little history lesson opens your eyes...
In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to Great Britain. They asked this 'diplomat' by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the ambassador) replied that Islam:
"Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
Congress authorized Jefferson to have the US ships seize all vessels and goods that belonged to the Pasha and anything else deemed necessary. As they saw the US was actually committed to the fight, Algiers and Tunis quickly abandoned the war and allegiance to Tripoli. Obviously, the US won the war.
I am not an expert on that particular conflict, but I have a strong suspicion that the motivations were more complex than merely religious fundamentalism. But even if the Tripoli attack on American ships over two hundred years ago had been motivated purely by religion, what are you attempting to prove by citing a single incident hundreds of years ago? By that logic, I could cite the Crusades and show how evil modern day Christians are.
What actual researchers do is they study many incidents of terrorism, not a single isolated case, to determine if the attacks follow any sort of pattern and what the general motivating factors are.
That is what Robert Pape has done in his extensive research on the subject. Why don't ISIS and Al Qaeda attack Switzerland? There are many countries around the world that are libertine in attitude, allow women to vote and go to college, and have social values that are contrary to Islamic teaching. Yet, with few exceptions, Muslim terrorists don't launch attacks against them. The victims of terrorist attacks in recent history have almost exclusively been nations that have either been intervening in the home nations of the terrorists, or were providing material support for these interventions.
Another surefire way to know that the terrorists who have launched these attacks were not motivated by Islamic fundamentalism is that they did not live in accordance with Islamic teaching themselves. The pilots in the 9/11 attacks spent much of their US stay visited strip clubs, doing drugs, paying prostitutes and generally living hedonistic lives. If they were serious about their religion and it's teachings, why were they breaking all the social tenets of their faith?
This recent attack was perpetrated by a man who was born in the United States. His parents moved from Afghanistan. He was radicalized through ISIS propaganda on the internet. And what was this propaganda? Terrorist recruitment propaganda has almost always focused on showing the harm to innocent lives from US military intervention. They show children dying from drone strikes and things like that. This is why people are motivated to join ISIS and Al Qaeda. People become appalled by the consequences to innocent civilians due to US foreign policy and they want to strike back any way they can.
It is NOT "blaming us" to admit to the motivating factor in the minds of most modern-day Islamic terrorists.
It also shouldn't be a surprise that most people who nominally belong to a certain religion don't particularly take seriously all, or even most, of it's teachings. Just looking at the actions of Al Qaeda and ISIS members should make that clear. This is why appealing to the words of Mohammed or one passage or another from the Quran is not very persuasive. Most people have other motivations and use religion as a cover or a pretext.
This recent attacker was gay, okay? The last I heard, homosexuality is frowned upon by fundamentalist Islam. And he made it explicitly clear why he killed all those people. He wants the US government to stop occupying and bombing his home country of Afghanistan.
I don't know why you are afraid to look at that video. Pape is a social scientist and researcher of the highest order. He is not a partisan in any way. He has been attempting to get through to people like you about the motivations for suicide terrorism for a decade, yet you seem content to stick your head in the sand and be willfully ignorant of crucial information. And, to be clear, this ignorance about what this terrorism problem is really about has led to the deaths of many innocent Americans and you are putting many more Americans at risk by not understanding what Pape and others have been trying to tell us.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 15, 2016, 06:39:58 PM
Here we go with another Liberal Tarian who blames the US for the worlds ills....or rather us "Neo Cons". These people just don't get it. The world is a bad place full of bad people who hate the USA because they are taught to do so.
'We" did not create terrorism or terrorists....these people create themselves, include Usama Bin Laudin in that.....he has always hated the US and refused US aide in Afghanistan. If anyone is responsible for UBL and the rise of middle east terrorism it is the former soviet Union who set things into motion with the invasion of Afghanistan and currently what is left of the USSR, ie Russia who empowers Iran towards nuclear arms.
Libral-tarian Idiots like Ron Paul and his Son Rand should know better but since they don't that's why they get 1% of the vote.
Last; Muslim immigrants don't assimilate well into our culture, this guy had a whole host of issues and was messed up in the head to begin with, add to that the current anti American counter culture fostered by the leftists to include the Govt and this is the result.
Expect more of the same...a lot of these shootings are Copy Cat types of deals.
This is so devoid of factual information it is scary. Our government and the CIA literally, directly created and funded Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic groups as a deliberate anti-Soviet Union Cold War strategy. Our government under Ronald Reagan supported the Mujahideen, funded radical madrassa schools because they thought they'd provide a bulwark against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The Mujahideen became Al Qaeda a decade latter.
The proliferation of radical Islamic groups throughout the Middle East, in modern times at least, can be directly traced to US military interventions and US funding.
Here is a short article written around the time Osama bin Laden was killed:
Quote He was our kind of guy until he wasn't, an ally during the Cold War until he no longer served our purposes. The problem with Osama bin Laden was not that he was a fanatical holy warrior; we liked his kind just fine as long as the infidels he targeted were not us but Russians and the secular Afghans in power in Kabul whom the Soviets backed.
But when bin Laden turned against us, he morphed into a figure of evil incarnate, and now three decades after we first decided to use him and other imported Muslim zealots for our Cold War purposes, we feel cleansed by his death of any responsibility for his carnage. We may make mistakes but we are never in the wrong. USA! USA!
Kind of like when the CIA assigned the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro and the Mafiosi turned out to have their own agenda, or when Pentagon experts anointed the Catholic nutcase Ngo Dinh Diem as the George Washington of predominately Buddhist South Vietnam before they felt the need to execute him. A similar fate was suffered by Saddam Hussein, whose infamous Baghdad handshake with Donald Rumsfeld stamped him as our agent in the war to defeat the ayatollahs of Iran.
Awkward, I know, to point out that bin Laden was another of those monsters of our creation, one of those Muslim "freedom fighters" that President Ronald Reagan celebrated for having responded to the CIA's call to kill the Soviets in Afghanistan. That holy crusade against infidels was financed by Saudi Arabia and armed with US weapons to oppose a secular Afghan government with Soviet backing but before Soviet troops had crossed the border. In short, it was an ill-fated and unjustifiable intervention by the US into another nation's internal affairs.
Don't trust me on this one. Just read the 1996 memoir by former Carter administration security official and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a book touted by its publisher as exposing "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen—six months before the Soviets invaded." This dismissal of the claimed Cold War excuse for the backing of the mujahedeen was acknowledged by President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, when asked by the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur if he regretted "having given arms and advice to future terrorists," answered that he did not: "What is most important to the history of the world? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"
That was said three years before some of those "stirred-up Muslims" like bin Laden and the alleged 9/11 plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—whom bin Laden financed, and whom he first met in Afghanistan when both were US-backed fighters—launched their deadly attacks on the United States. The cost of the American response to that assault has spiraled upward for a decade. A defense budget that the first President Bush had attempted to cut drastically because the Cold War was over was pushed to its highest peacetime level by the second President Bush and now with three wars under way equals the military expenditures of all of the world's other nations combined.
But while Libya and Iraq have oil to exploit, what will be the argument for continuing the interminable war in Afghanistan now that bin Laden is gone? White House national security experts had already conceded that there were fewer than a hundred scattered al-Qaida operatives in Afghanistan, and that these were incapable of mounting anti-US attacks. Clearly, what remains of al-Qaida is no longer based in Afghanistan, as the location of bin Laden's hiding place, in a military hub in Pakistan, demonstrated. Nor is there any indication that the Taliban we are fighting in Afghanistan are anything but homegrown fighters with motives and leadership far removed from the designs of the late bin Laden.
It is time to concede that the mess that is Afghanistan is a result of our cynical uses of those people and their land for purposes that have nothing to do with their needs or aspirations. Even if bin Laden had been killed in some forlorn cave in Afghanistan, it would not have made the case that he was using that country as a base. But the fact that he was in an area amply populated by the very Pakistani military and intelligence forces that we have armed, and that should have been able to easily nab him, gives the lie to the claim that Afghanistan is vital territory to be secured in what two administrations have now chosen to define as the war on terrorism.
http://www.thenation.com/article/osama-bin-laden-monster-our-own-creation/
This article was written by Robert Scheer and is called "Osama bin Laden: A Monster of Our Own Creation".
So when you say things like "We didn't create terrorism" and "Osama bin Laden has always hated the United States" you are wrong on both counts. Osama liked the United States just fine when the CIA was funding him and our government supported him, and radical Mujahideen members, against the Soviet Union.
Look, if you get a kick out of hating Islam, then knock yourself out. That's your thing. But you have to accept the facts. The modern day terrorist problem that the United States is facing is entirely a product of decades of US military intervention. The CIA calls this "blowback".
Take off your partisan goggles for a few minutes and just look at the objective facts. Watch the Robert Pape video, learn about the history of the US government funding and supporting the Mujahideen and radical madrassa schools during the 1980s.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 07:40:21 PM
This is so devoid of factual information it is scary. Our government and the CIA literally, directly created and funded Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic groups as a deliberate anti-Soviet Union Cold War strategy. Our government under Ronald Reagan supported the Mujahideen, funded radical madrassa schools because they thought they'd provide a bulwark against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The Mujahideen became Al Qaeda a decade latter.
The proliferation of radical Islamic groups throughout the Middle East, in modern times at least, can be directly traced to US military interventions and US funding.
Here is a short article written around the time Osama bin Laden was killed:
http://www.thenation.com/article/osama-bin-laden-monster-our-own-creation/
This article was written by Robert Scheer and is called "Osama bin Laden: A Monster of Our Own Creation".
So when you say things like "We didn't create terrorism" and "Osama bin Laden has always hated the United States" you are wrong on both counts. Osama liked the United States just fine when the CIA was funding him and our government supported him, and radical Mujahideen members, against the Soviet Union.
Look, if you get a kick out of hating Islam, then knock yourself out. That's your thing. But you have to accept the facts. The modern day terrorist problem that the United States is facing is entirely a product of decades of US military intervention. The CIA calls this "blowback".
Take off your partisan goggles for a few minutes and just look at the objective facts. Watch the Robert Pape video, learn about the history of the US government funding and supporting the Mujahideen and radical madrassa schools during the 1980s.
One question. So what motivated the Moors to invade and enslave southern Europe 1,000 years ago?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 07:40:21 PM
This is so devoid of factual information it is scary. Our government and the CIA literally, directly created and funded Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic groups as a deliberate anti-Soviet Union Cold War strategy. Our government under Ronald Reagan supported the Mujahideen, funded radical madrassa schools because they thought they'd provide a bulwark against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The Mujahideen became Al Qaeda a decade latter.
The proliferation of radical Islamic groups throughout the Middle East, in modern times at least, can be directly traced to US military interventions and US funding.
Here is a short article written around the time Osama bin Laden was killed:
http://www.thenation.com/article/osama-bin-laden-monster-our-own-creation/
This article was written by Robert Scheer and is called "Osama bin Laden: A Monster of Our Own Creation".
So when you say things like "We didn't create terrorism" and "Osama bin Laden has always hated the United States" you are wrong on both counts. Osama liked the United States just fine when the CIA was funding him and our government supported him, and radical Mujahideen members, against the Soviet Union.
Look, if you get a kick out of hating Islam, then knock yourself out. That's your thing. But you have to accept the facts. The modern day terrorist problem that the United States is facing is entirely a product of decades of US military intervention. The CIA calls this "blowback".
Take off your partisan goggles for a few minutes and just look at the objective facts. Watch the Robert Pape video, learn about the history of the US government funding and supporting the Mujahideen and radical madrassa schools during the 1980s.
Yet you fail to recognize who created them initially. Wahabism, dating back centuries.
Why are you being so myopic and focusing on inconsequential details? It matters not where they get their funding or training, what matters is a nation state is breeding fanaticism solely to stay in in power as a Royal family.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 07:22:13 PM
I am not an expert
no shuit!
Quoteon that particular conflict, but I have a strong suspicion that the motivations were more complex than merely religious fundamentalism. But even if the Tripoli attack on American ships over two hundred years ago had been motivated purely by religion, what are you attempting to prove by citing a single incident hundreds of years ago? By that logic, I could cite the Crusades and show how evil modern day Christians are.
Wow, the ignorance is strong with this one.
Based on your level of intellect, I'll assume you're in your early 20s, which would explain your failure in understanding the big picture.
The motivation of these people is that they were raise believing the law of the jungle, and if you are not a Muscum like them, then everything you own is deservedly theirs, including your life.
They do not function in the world you know, where ownership of another human is wrong, and their religion/political system says so.
QuoteWhat actual researchers do is they study many incidents of terrorism, not a single isolated case, to determine if the attacks follow any sort of pattern and what the general motivating factors are.
That is what Robert Pape has done in his extensive research on the subject. Why don't ISIS and Al Qaeda attack Switzerland? There are many countries around the world that are libertine in attitude, allow women to vote and go to college, and have social values that are contrary to Islamic teaching. Yet, with few exceptions, Muslim terrorists don't launch attacks against them. The victims of terrorist attacks in recent history have almost exclusively been nations that have either been intervening in the home nations of the terrorists, or were providing material support for these interventions.
Wherein lies the problem, they aren't contrary to the teachings of a mad man pedophile.
QuoteAnother surefire way to know that the terrorists who have launched these attacks were not motivated by Islamic fundamentalism is that they did not live in accordance with Islamic teaching themselves. The pilots in the 9/11 attacks spent much of their US stay visited strip clubs, doing drugs, paying prostitutes and generally living hedonistic lives. If they were serious about their religion and it's teachings, why were they breaking all the social tenets of their faith?
I suggest you do a bit more reading before you expose more of your ignorance.
The leaders of the 911 plot tricked nearly everyone involved into thinking this wasn't a suicide mission, that as payment they were absolved of sin for the evening.
It's all in the CIA report.
QuoteThis recent attack was perpetrated by a man who was born in the United States. His parents moved from Afghanistan. He was radicalized through ISIS propaganda on the internet. And what was this propaganda? Terrorist recruitment propaganda has almost always focused on showing the harm to innocent lives from US military intervention. They show children dying from drone strikes and things like that. This is why people are motivated to join ISIS and Al Qaeda. People become appalled by the consequences to innocent civilians due to US foreign policy and they want to strike back any way they can.
It is NOT "blaming us" to admit to the motivating factor in the minds of most modern-day Islamic terrorists.
Again, we are merely the latest target of Islum, why is that so hard to understand?
QuoteIt also shouldn't be a surprise that most people who nominally belong to a certain religion don't particularly take seriously all, or even most, of it's teachings. Just looking at the actions of Al Qaeda and ISIS members should make that clear. This is why appealing to the words of Mohammed or one passage or another from the Quran is not very persuasive. Most people have other motivations and use religion as a cover or a pretext.
I agree, but religion is their excuse to take what isn't theirs.
QuoteThis recent attacker was gay, okay? The last I heard, homosexuality is frowned upon by fundamentalist Islam. And he made it explicitly clear why he killed all those people. He wants the US government to stop occupying and bombing his home country of Afghanistan.
I don't know why you are afraid to look at that video. Pape is a social scientist and researcher of the highest order. He is not a partisan in any way. He has been attempting to get through to people like you about the motivations for suicide terrorism for a decade, yet you seem content to stick your head in the sand and be willfully ignorant of crucial information. And, to be clear, this ignorance about what this terrorism problem is really about has led to the deaths of many innocent Americans and you are putting many more Americans at risk by not understanding what Pape and others have been trying to tell us.
Decades? You don't get it do you? These people have been acting like animals for centuries, murdering, raping, pillaging, taking slaves, forcing people to worship their savior at the point of a sword and forcing them to pay a tax the rest of their lives for not being born a Muscum.
How is it America was responsible for all the death centuries before our existence?
Did you even read the quote to Jefferson as to why they attacked our ships? How does Pape explain that away?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 01:48:04 AM
I've posted on these forums a considerable while ago, but I'd like to get a sense of the conservative view on the recent Orlando terrorist attack at the gay nightclub and about terrorism in general and the so-called "War on Terror" in particular.
I am a libertarian anarchist, also sometimes referred to as "voluntaryist", just so you are reminded of my ideological persuasion.
What's left out of this discussion about the Orlando shooter was a key piece of information about his motivation, which was reported in the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-20160614-snap-story.html
Libertarians have always maintained that the motivations for Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States have always been about our foreign policy. It is NOT about the religion of Islam. Al Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS have been primarily motivated by anger and resentment about US interventions, drone bombings, nation building and general disregard for the corpses, numbering in the millions, of Arab Muslims caused by our military excursions into the Middle East over the past several decades.
This is not to say that, absent our meddling into the affairs of middle eastern nations, that radical Islamic elements would disappear. But attacks against the United States would almost certainly disappear. The problem of radical Islam would become an internal problem for moderate Muslims in the region to deal with, or not deal with. It would no longer be our concern.
Robert Pape has studied the motivations for suicide terrorism and his conclusion is that this war is about political goals, not religious goals. There is a strategic objective that Islamic terrorists seek through the use of terrorism. They seek to change our foreign policy through generating fear of civilian deaths among the democratic populace of the occupying nation. The goal is that people end up realizing that the military occupation of foreign nations is not worth the resulting threat to civilian safety from the terrorist response to said occupation and that people rise up and make their leaders change their policy, withdrawing troops, lifting sanctions and so forth.
See Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism".
This recent Orlando shooting is yet another example of blowback. Our so-called "War on Terrorism" and the preceding decades of sanctions, bombs, and the overthrow of elected leaders in the middle east has, and will continue, to directly result in the deaths of American civilians.
Give you dummies a script, and you run with it. These attacks on our soil occur because the Islamo-Marxists who have infiltrated our government are encouraging it and allowing it to happen. Cult followers who wipe their butts with their hands aren't a threat to us without the importing of terror. Otherwise, they'd be stuck in the sand trying to find some shade.
Quote
If you support these military interventions you must share some of the culpability for the blowback that has predictably resulted from those ill-conceived actions.
Ron Paul is just a man. Try not to be so devoted. Think once in a while.
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2016, 05:25:50 AM
Yet you fail to recognize who created them initially. Wahabism, dating back centuries.
Why are you being so myopic and focusing on inconsequential details? It matters not where they get their funding or training, what matters is a nation state is breeding fanaticism solely to stay in in power as a Royal family.
These open-border geniuses don't understand it happens over here because we let them over here. If we went against his position and secured the border, we wouldn't have attacks, except just for the regular ol' fashioned Acorn/SEIU sponsored ones.
Quote from: taxed on June 16, 2016, 06:02:03 AM
These open-border geniuses don't understand it happens over here because we let them over here. If we went against his position and secured the border, we wouldn't have attacks, except just for the regular ol' fashioned Acorn/SEIU sponsored ones.
Exactly! We have enough trouble with actual communists in power via the Dim party to worry about without having to keep an eye on the border too.
The Dim party knows quite well that flooding the nation with leftists from third world countries will only help their cause of destroying the country.
What bothers me the most, is how brainwashed these kids are and their willingness to ignore history as an indicator of the future.
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2016, 09:11:53 AM
Exactly! We have enough trouble with actual communists in power via the Dim party to worry about without having to keep an eye on the border too.
The Dim party knows quite well that flooding the nation with leftists from third world countries will only help their cause of destroying the country.
What bothers me the most, is how brainwashed these kids are and their willingness to ignore history as an indicator of the future.
We have the government gulags and the media to thank for the brainwashing.
Quote from: tac on June 16, 2016, 09:25:11 AM
We have the government gulags and the media to thank for the brainwashing.
I know, it's so disheartening, Hell, they elect a Marxist, then like sheep, promote a lib nationalist to the party.
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 16, 2016, 04:41:39 AM
One question. So what motivated the Moors to invade and enslave southern Europe 1,000 years ago?
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.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 07:40:21 PM
This is so devoid of factual information it is scary. Our government and the CIA literally, directly created and funded Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic groups as a deliberate anti-Soviet Union Cold War strategy. Our government under Ronald Reagan supported the Mujahideen, funded radical madrassa schools because they thought they'd provide a bulwark against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The Mujahideen became Al Qaeda a decade latter.
The proliferation of radical Islamic groups throughout the Middle East, in modern times at least, can be directly traced to US military interventions and US funding.
Here is a short article written around the time Osama bin Laden was killed:
http://www.thenation.com/article/osama-bin-laden-monster-our-own-creation/
This article was written by Robert Scheer and is called "Osama bin Laden: A Monster of Our Own Creation".
So when you say things like "We didn't create terrorism" and "Osama bin Laden has always hated the United States" you are wrong on both counts. Osama liked the United States just fine when the CIA was funding him and our government supported him, and radical Mujahideen members, against the Soviet Union.
Look, if you get a kick out of hating Islam, then knock yourself out. That's your thing. But you have to accept the facts. The modern day terrorist problem that the United States is facing is entirely a product of decades of US military intervention. The CIA calls this "blowback".
Take off your partisan goggles for a few minutes and just look at the objective facts. Watch the Robert Pape video, learn about the history of the US government funding and supporting the Mujahideen and radical madrassa schools during the 1980s.
I don;t know where you, Robert Pape, Scheer or the freaking Easter Bunny are getting your "facts" from but lemme clue you on something....
Social Scientists and
researchers have their own agenda, put a set of letters behind their name and they can sell anything(
Usually a book where they take Theoretical license) to anybody who are impressed by advanced education, academic intelligensia. Few people will call them on it....except for guys like me. I wonder if either of these two literary warriors have been out from behind their desks.
Those of us who spent our lives in the trenches and on the street don't give them much credibility.
So let us begin with your education:
There are NO FACTS supporting OBL's involvement with the USA/CIA DOD or Military vis a vis His role in Afghanistan, OBL himself denied seeking or obtaining aide from the USA many times. Here is why.
OBL was the scoin of a rich Saudi Family, actually the black sheep because he wanted to force the Whabbi agenda and remove the house of Saud from power, one reason was that he hated their dealings with the USA, and was particualry upset over the fact that there was a US Army of infidels occupying Territory so close to the two Holiest of Muslim Holy sites, Medina and Mecca. So he cause a little stir, lost his gambit and had to flee the country. Some sources say he managed to move his vast fortune made from construction out of the country (TO SWITZERLAND) some say he fled penniless and managed to obtain support from the Whabbi network or donations from richer under families to the rulng Saudi.
THAT MEANS HE WAS A
TERRORIST WAAAYYYYY BEFORE THE USSR INVADED AFGHANISTAN AND THE LATER USA INVOLVEMENT.
When the USSR INVADED Afghanistan, he saw his life's calling and traveled there financing Muhajadeen operations against the USSR.
If Pape had done his homework he would have learned that AFghanistan was a kingdom of warring factions/tribes and ethnic groups loosely held together by a ruling body with ties to the Old King. SOme of these tribes/groups threw in with the USSR, and, in an age old story began to turn their attentions on rebellious factions and tribes that refused to play along....enter OBL and his largely mercenary army of Muslim fanatics. THAT IS HOW THE USSR or rather the KGB Operate. Aside...take a look at Syria today.... :popcorn:
Now the USA DID support various factions....mostly what was known as the northern alliance (MORE ON THIS LATER) but there is no evidence they supported OBL, as a matter of fact OBL stated he flat out refused "Infidel" help;
But to say that we "created" OBL is flat false, misleading and more of an urban myth than anything else.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/rand-pauls-bin-laden-claim-is-urban-myth/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-10-myths-cia-arsenal
Now two weeks before 9/11, OBL took the precaution of killing one US ally, the fellow known as the lion of the north Amad Shah Masur....OBL knew the US would likely come gunning for him and use this fellow and his army who was contesting OBL.
And as I mentioned previously one reason why you don;t have terrorists targeting Switzerland is that Switzerland has no power and very little bearing on world affairs. They serve as bankers to anybody and everybody....especially terrorists, as gold nourishes war why would you attack those who keep your gold safe from the world eye's?
Now you got to stop buying into the left's agenda that the US is "creating" terrorists, its the same nonsense they preach about how the Racist USA 'Creates" all the problems and crime in the country due to our "racist policies, and social injustice" we don't give the black man a chance, discriminate against him so he turns to crime out of rage and a sense of injustice....much the same a terrorist does. That's what these marxist fiends who occupy the halls of Govt have promulgated over the last 25-30 yrs. Its all bullshit, people need to be held responsible for their actions.
Last, if any country is responsible for "creating terrorism" I suggest you start with Great Britain during their colonial period and the USSR with their world domination policies of the last century.
Quote from: taxed on June 16, 2016, 05:59:18 AM
Give you dummies a script, and you run with it. These attacks on our soil occur because the Islamo-Marxists who have infiltrated our government are encouraging it and allowing it to happen. Cult followers who wipe their butts with their hands aren't a threat to us without the importing of terror. Otherwise, they'd be stuck in the sand trying to find some shade.
Ron Paul is just a man. Try not to be so devoted. Think once in a while.
Islamo-Marxists?! Seems to me to be just as meaningless and inaccurate a term as the previous smear word "Islamo-Fascist". Our government is made up almost entirely of Christians, with a small percentage of Jews and other denominations.
I will agree with one thing though. I totally believe that some people in our government would like to have intermittent terrorist attacks because it provides the perfect pretext to pass all sorts of laws that restrict our civil liberties. It allows them an excuse to launch wars.
While this may be true, this still does not explain the motivations for the terrorist attacks.
Can you agree with me that our government has provided reasonable, non-fundamentalist Muslims in the middle east plenty of reasons to hate the United States? If you could only imagine what it would be like if your family was murdered by a drone, you could have some empathy for the non-radicalized Arab population that has had to suffer needlessly due to US military policy.
It has been said many times that in order for the world to fight against radical extremists like ISIS, we need moderate Muslims and other Middle Eastern nations to stand up against them. But outside military occupation and bombings only serve to unify the disparate Muslim factions against a common enemy. Moderate groups who might otherwise stand in opposition to ISIS are incentivized to tacitly cheer on when an ISIS-affiliated group launches an attack against the United States, getting revenge for the innocents that the US military has killed.
By the way, I didn't mention Ron Paul at all so I don't know what purpose it serves to bring his name up. He gets it right on foreign policy in my view, but a whole lot of experts support his view. I'm not getting my information from one source.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 16, 2016, 05:33:19 PM
Islamo-Marxists?! Seems to me to be just as meaningless and inaccurate a term as the previous smear word "Islamo-Fascist". Our government is made up almost entirely of Christians, with a small percentage of Jews and other denominations.
I will agree with one thing though. I totally believe that some people in our government would like to have intermittent terrorist attacks because it provides the perfect pretext to pass all sorts of laws that restrict our civil liberties. It allows them an excuse to launch wars.
While this may be true, this still does not explain the motivations for the terrorist attacks.
Can you agree with me that our government has provided reasonable, non-fundamentalist Muslims in the middle east plenty of reasons to hate the United States? If you could only imagine what it would be like if your family was murdered by a drone, you could have some empathy for the non-radicalized Arab population that has had to suffer needlessly due to US military policy.
It has been said many times that in order for the world to fight against radical extremists like ISIS, we need moderate Muslims and other Middle Eastern nations to stand up against them. But outside military occupation and bombings only serve to unify the disparate Muslim factions against a common enemy. Moderate groups who might otherwise stand in opposition to ISIS are incentivized to tacitly cheer on when an ISIS-affiliated group launches an attack against the United States, getting revenge for the innocents that the US military has killed.
By the way, I didn't mention Ron Paul at all so I don't know what purpose it serves to bring his name up. He gets it right on foreign policy in my view, but a whole lot of experts support his view. I'm not getting my information from one source.
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?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 16, 2016, 05:33:19 PM
Islamo-Marxists?! Seems to me to be just as meaningless and inaccurate a term as the previous smear word "Islamo-Fascist". Our government is made up almost entirely of Christians, with a small percentage of Jews and other denominations.
I will agree with one thing though. I totally believe that some people in our government would like to have intermittent terrorist attacks because it provides the perfect pretext to pass all sorts of laws that restrict our civil liberties. It allows them an excuse to launch wars.
While this may be true, this still does not explain the motivations for the terrorist attacks.
Can you agree with me that our government has provided reasonable, non-fundamentalist Muslims in the middle east plenty of reasons to hate the United States? If you could only imagine what it would be like if your family was murdered by a drone, you could have some empathy for the non-radicalized Arab population that has had to suffer needlessly due to US military policy.
It has been said many times that in order for the world to fight against radical extremists like ISIS, we need moderate Muslims and other Middle Eastern nations to stand up against them. But outside military occupation and bombings only serve to unify the disparate Muslim factions against a common enemy. Moderate groups who might otherwise stand in opposition to ISIS are incentivized to tacitly cheer on when an ISIS-affiliated group launches an attack against the United States, getting revenge for the innocents that the US military has killed.
By the way, I didn't mention Ron Paul at all so I don't know what purpose it serves to bring his name up. He gets it right on foreign policy in my view, but a whole lot of experts support his view. I'm not getting my information from one source.
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.
Anyone who thinks that Islamic terrorism
is solely a reaction against outside interference
has never studied Muhammad.
Here are a few articles that can help:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/new-board/a-short-biography-of-muhammad/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/new-board/jesus-vs-muhammad-a-comparison/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/new-board/islamfacts-or-dreams-by-andrew-mccarthy/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/is-'true-islam'-peaceful/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/isis-plans-on-killing-hundreds-of-millions/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/new-board/real-islam-wants-an-end-time-battle/
Has the USA interfered in the Middle East with less than pure motives?
Absolutely!
The fact that a country is being invaded for profit
is completely independent of whether or not
the country is populated by savages.
Reaction against interference might explain Islamic aggression for the last 40 years,
but it certainly doesn't explain all of the Islamic aggression for the last 1400 years!
There were hundreds of years of Islamic aggression
before any Crusades were attempted.
And the Crusades were to liberate conquered people!
They were Europe's reaction against Islamic aggression!
The "brutal dictators" installed by the West
have been, by and large, much less brutal than
the democratically elected savages the people choose over there!
Just look at Egypt over the last five years!
When terrorists strike America and Europe,
they deliberately target civilians.
When America conducts airstrikes on the Middle East,
they target only combatants.
Any civilians who are killed are "collateral damage"
and that's mostly because the savages
are using women and children as "human shields!"
The best resource for revealing the true nature of Islam is
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
How many terrorist attacks have there been since 9-11?
20? 50? 100?
How many countries have Islamic terrorists struck since 9-11?
5? 10? 20?
How many of those countries have ever launched ANY kind of strike
against Islamic countries? (Drone or otherwise)
See http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ to get some perspective.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 16, 2016, 04:04:23 PM
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.
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?
QuoteThe Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
QuotePosted by: jrodefeld
« on: Today at 06:33:19 PM » Insert Quote
... this still does not explain the motivations for the terrorist attacks.
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2016, 06:36:38 PM
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.
Quote from: walkstall on June 16, 2016, 06:41:25 PM
You could tell that in his first two posts.
Liberal guilt gave him away.
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2016, 06:45:47 PM
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.
Quote from: walkstall on June 16, 2016, 07:01:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2016, 07:27:09 PM
iF HE KEEPS IT, THEY'LL TAX HIM THE GOING RATE FOR BEING AN INFIDEL.
From GOC
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgrouchyoldcripple.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2Fabadcomparer.jpg&hash=a80e194ddf31516ed3859360a5f0fc9e9df2f9d7)
Quote from: walkstall on June 16, 2016, 07:31:18 PM
From GOC
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgrouchyoldcripple.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2Fabadcomparer.jpg&hash=a80e194ddf31516ed3859360a5f0fc9e9df2f9d7)
Oh now that's just silly, you can't use facts when dealing with libs... :biggrin:
Quote from: s3779m on June 16, 2016, 06:04:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 16, 2016, 06:26:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2016, 06:36:38 PM
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:
QuoteAcross 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
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2016, 06:45:47 PM
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.
Quote from: walkstall on June 16, 2016, 07:31:18 PM
From GOC
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgrouchyoldcripple.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2Fabadcomparer.jpg&hash=a80e194ddf31516ed3859360a5f0fc9e9df2f9d7)
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?
Quote from: mrclose on June 17, 2016, 12:28:28 AM
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.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 16, 2016, 04:04:23 PM
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?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 16, 2016, 10:15:45 PM
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.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 16, 2016, 10:31:57 PM
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.... :popcorn:)
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....
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 16, 2016, 11:02:08 PM
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.
That explains a lot,
I would like to quote you on something:
"What do we care what irrational fantasies float in the heads of Madmen"
Your Liberal-tarian belief in "Universal non agression and the abolition of the State is just as irrational and as much as a fantasy. That makes you a sort of madman a well....doesn't it. :lol:
But Thanks for playing.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 16, 2016, 10:56:33 PM
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.
Isn't that sweet, you implant your ideals on individuals that in no way share your end goals.
These people want to either destroy, or enslave you, you continuously ignore the reality that not all societies share the idea of liberty and freedom, that many M/E nations prefer a dictatorship, they function under heavy rule.
QuoteI 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.
Not at all, I'm pissed that we never commit to winning. Either we takeover the place, or leave completely, there is no middle ground with the Muscum animal, a people that see women as chattle lower than that of a farm animal, treat boys as sex slaves and girls in many parts of the world to have their clits removed, depriving them of Gods gift.
QuoteI 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 you'd be wrong as usual. Take a look at our immigration policy and tell me it hasn't changed in the last 30 years. But then, I doubt you've been around long enough to do a side by side comparison to the previous 60 years, which is why your world view is so skewed, you only know what some idiot professor tells you to think.
QuoteAnd, 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:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
My bad, I mixed up quotes, I meant 'Death To America', but now that you bring up the lie of it being a hoax, the fact is, that was a literal translation, but seeing how the word map was misattributed to the word pages, one can claim the quote false, when in fact the rhetoric remains intact.
But to my original point, that being these muscum call for our destruction seems to be a point you want to ignore.
Khamenei calls
'Death to America' as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal
http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-calls-death-to-america-as-kerry-hails-progress-on-nuke-deal/
As the Guardian columnist Jonathan Steele explained in 2006, a more direct translation of Mr. Ahmadinejad's remarks would be: "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," echoing a statement once made by the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
In an English translation three days after the speech in 2005, the Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri — which was founded by a former Israeli intelligence officer — rendered the sentence in a similar way: "Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.'"
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/israeli-minister-agrees-ahmadinejad-never-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/?_r=0
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 17, 2016, 04:12:24 AM
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?
Nope, that's not my point at all. My point is that US and allied forces military intervention into the middle east is the primary reason why we face the continued threat of terrorist attacks. Islam will continue to have it's own internal problems, but those problems cannot justify our military killing innocent people and interfering with the sovereignty of nations that haven't attacked us.
Quote from: s3779m on June 17, 2016, 04:37:53 AM
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.
"Killing" and "terrorism" are distinct issues. Terrorism is a concerted political strategy. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and don't harm others. There are currently more than three million Muslims living in the United States and they have not, as a group, proven to be any more prone to crime and violence than any other group.
Most of the extremist strains of Islam originate from the Middle East and therefore other socioeconomic and political factors must be considered to explain the radical behavior. There are fundamentalist interpretations of all religions that people use to justify atrocities.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 17, 2016, 05:08:03 AM
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.... :popcorn:)
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....
I'll tell you how we should respond to terrorist attacks. We should specifically target and apprehend those directly responsible for the plotting and execution of a terrorist attack, capture them alive if possible and give them an open public trial. The sentence, if convicted, should almost always be either life in prison or death.
After 9/11, former Congressman Ron Paul proposed issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which was written into the Constitution as a means of targeting a non-State enemy, to deputize special forces or private contractors to find, apprehend or kill Osama bin Laden.
This makes a lot of sense. What we should NOT do is to invade and occupy a foreign country, overthrow their government and engage in nation building. Our military forces are the wrong tool for targeting a small group of criminals.
We should listen to the rationale given by the terrorist groups as to why they attacked us. If we can learn what tends to radicalize people to hate the United States, and we can change our actions to be less antagonistic, then we ought to do so.
After we apprehend or kill those responsible for the terrorist attacks, we must leave immediately from the foreign nation and grant the people of that nation their sovereignty and right to self-determination.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 17, 2016, 05:16:28 AM
That explains a lot,
I would like to quote you on something:
"What do we care what irrational fantasies float in the heads of Madmen"
Your Liberal-tarian belief in "Universal non agression and the abolition of the State is just as irrational and as much as a fantasy. That makes you a sort of madman a well....doesn't it. :lol:
But Thanks for playing.
What I believe is that aggression against peaceful people is immoral. That is all. Do you really disagree with this? You think that it is morally justified to initiate violence against a peaceful person?
Believing that aggression is immoral does not mean I think that all humans in the foreseeable future will be peaceful and not commit aggression. Just as most rational people think that murder is wrong, and should be against the law, even though we don't think there will ever be a time when no murder will occur.
Therefore the ideal way to organize society would be through voluntary contribution to governmental agencies, police, courts, public works, social services, etc. Therefore, no State. Short of that, we want to limit the power of the State as much as possible. If we must have a State, then let it be a Night Watchman State that provides for the common defense, protects liberty and property and provides a court system to adjudicate disputes.
If you don't accept the non aggression principle, then it is incumbent upon you to justify the use of violence against peaceful people.
Islam is going to attack America whether we attack them or not.
They attack everyone. It's who they are. It's what they do.
The U.S. government's attacks on radical Muslims are NOT
to "bring freedom to that part of the world."
That's just war propaganda.
One very likely reason is for the global ruling clique
(based largely on Wall Street, in London, and a few other places)
to reconstruct the Middle East in the image of
the reconstruction of America (especially the monetary system)
they foisted on us in 1913.
Also, rational people usually think that, when there is conflict,
a person or party would join one side and try to help them win.
The global ruling clique doesn't think that way.
How they work is well illustrated in World War I:
They infiltrate and manipulate as many sides as they can!
They try to maneuver everyone into fighting one another
and wearing one another out.
The global ruling clique is not so much about making anyone win
as they are about making EVERYBODY lose!
That's what they did in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Croatia (Catholic), Serbia (Eastern Orthodox), and Bosnia (Muslim)
were all goaded into attacking one another
to grind ALL of them down,
so they would have to go into debt to the international bankers
to rebuild their countries.
It's conquest through debt.
That's what the global ruling clique is doing today.
They're buying ISIS oil on the black market to keep them viable,
while they're promoting "neo-cons" in America
to keep us spending ourselves into debt with war expenses,
and to erode our national spirit by making us "war weary."
How Barry The B*****d helped them is
he pulled America out of Iraq abruptly, INTENTIONALLY destabilizing it,
to create a crisis, so they could wear down America some more.
The Illegitimate One's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel put it this way:
"Never let a good crisis go to waste."
You can enact change in times of crisis
that people would never accept in normal times.
The global ruling clique is doing to us again
what they did in the Vietnam era:
getting us into war, and then not letting us win!
That's one reason the ruling clique hates Trump so much.
He intends to actually win the war against ISIS!
instead of continuing Bathhouse Barry's "pin prick" airstrikes.
HilLIARy (or Biden, or any other Democrat) would continue the same.
Putin and Trump might make a good team
at bringing peace and stability to the world.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 17, 2016, 06:52:33 PM
"Killing" and "terrorism" are distinct issues. Terrorism is a concerted political strategy. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and don't harm others. There are currently more than three million Muslims living in the United States and they have not, as a group, proven to be any more prone to crime and violence than any other group.
Most of the extremist strains of Islam originate from the Middle East and therefore other socioeconomic and political factors must be considered to explain the radical behavior. There are fundamentalist interpretations of all religions that people use to justify atrocities.
I hope the next 1000 move in next door to you.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 17, 2016, 07:11:31 PM
What I believe is that aggression against peaceful people is immoral. That is all. Do you really disagree with this? You think that it is morally justified to initiate violence against a peaceful person?
Believing that aggression is immoral does not mean I think that all humans in the foreseeable future will be peaceful and not commit aggression. Just as most rational people think that murder is wrong, and should be against the law, even though we don't think there will ever be a time when no murder will occur.
Therefore the ideal way to organize society would be through voluntary contribution to governmental agencies, police, courts, public works, social services, etc. Therefore, no State. Short of that, we want to limit the power of the State as much as possible. If we must have a State, then let it be a Night Watchman State that provides for the common defense, protects liberty and property and provides a court system to adjudicate disputes.
If you don't accept the non aggression principle, then it is incumbent upon you to justify the use of violence against peaceful people.
No I don't condone violence against peaceful people....but terrorists and certain outlaws do....That's why I believe in killing them. You can't reason with them, you cant dismiss them or ignore them as you suggest, that only emboldens them, the only effective way to deal with them is to kill them. Which I beleive in doing most efficiently and effectively....not playing around with them as we are doing now.
Like most conservatives I am a realist, and as a realist your utopian concept of a Statesless State where people just live in harmony and stop their aggression will NEVER HAPPEN.
I understand man's true nature.....
You Don't.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 17, 2016, 07:42:39 PM
No I don't condone violence against peaceful people....but terrorists and certain outlaws do....That's why I believe in killing them. You can't reason with them, you cant dismiss them or ignore them as you suggest, that only emboldens them, the only effective way to deal with them is to kill them. Which I beleive in doing most efficiently and effectively....not playing around with them as we are doing now.
Like most conservatives I am a realist, and as a realist your utopian concept of a Statesless State where people just live in harmony and stop their aggression will NEVER HAPPEN.
I understand man's true nature.....
You Don't.
I would like you to read this short article by libertarian author and scholar Sheldon Richman:
QuoteAfter the terrorist violence in Brussels many people, including Barack Obama, said we should not change our way of life and live in fear because that is what terrorists want. Maybe, but is that all they want? It seems that something important is left out of the story. In the classical model of terrorism, instilling fear (along with causing death and injury) is not an end in itself. It's a means to an end.
Terrorists don't necessarily get a kick out creating carnage and fear (though it is possible). Primarily they want the survivors' fear converted into action aimed at changing their government's policy. Thus terrorism, if it is to have any meaning, is a political, not a sadistic, act. In the paradigmic case a weak nonstate group, unable to resist a state's military or to change its policy directly, terrorizes the civilian population of that state in the hope it will demand a change in foreign or domestic policy. (Let's leave aside for this discussion that terrorism has been strategically (re)defined by the United States and its allies such that it can apply only to their adversaries, even when they attack military targets instead of civilians.)
It's not hard to fathom why officials and pundits do not acknowledge the full story of terrorism: it would draw attention to what the U.S. government and allied states have long been doing to people in the Muslim world. Nearly all Americans seem to think it's a sheer coincidence that terrorism is most likely to be committed by people who profess some form of Islam and that the U.S. military has for decades been bombing, droning, occupying, torturing, etc. in multiple Islamic countries. Or perhaps they think U.S.-inflicted violence is just a defensive response to earlier terrorism. (I might be giving people too much credit by assuming they even know the U.S. government is doing any of this.) When the U.S. military isn't wreaking havoc directly, the U.S. government is underwriting and arming tyrants like those in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere. And just to complete the picture, the U.S. government fully backs the Israeli state, which has oppressed Palestinians and occupied their land for many decades.
All this is what Islamist terrorists say they seek revenge for (more here), and the U.S. government acknowledges this. (That does not excuse violence against noncombatants, of course.)
But telling the full story about the terrorists' objectives might inadvertently prompt a fresh look – maybe even a reevaluation – of America's atrocious foreign policy. The ruling elite and the military-industrial complex would not want that.
Since questioning and changing U.S. foreign policy are out of the question, the pundits and "terrorism experts" look for other ways to prevent terrorism. Unsurprisingly, everything they come up with entails violations of our civil liberties. Discussions about "profiling" are featured on cable news channels almost regularly. Should we or should we not profile? Those few who say no are accused of "political correctness," the handy put-down for anyone who is leery about violating privacy or gratuitously insulting whole classes of people.
But let's think about profiling for a moment. As acknowledged, when one hears about public, indiscriminate suicidal violence, such as occurred in Brussels, it is reasonable to wonder if the perpetrators professed some "extreme" variant of Islam. (That doesn't mean another group, say, neo-Nazis and white nationalists, couldn't be the perps, as in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.) But since Islamists come to mind first, that might give us a clue to how to profile. As part of the profiling, why not look for links to countries the U.S. government and its allies bomb, occupy, or otherwise abuse? The media inform us that many of the terrorists in Europe first went to Syria to try to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad (whom the U.S. government wants overthrown), but then came home angry after NATO countries started bombing the Islamic State there and in Iraq, with the inevitable civilian casualties. In some cases Syrian nationals sneaked into Europe through Turkey.
So the perpetrators of the next terrorist act are likely to be Islamists with links to or sympathy for people terrorized by the United States and its allies – namely, in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. But if that kind of profiling makes sense, wouldn't it make even more sense simply to stop inflicting violence on the Muslim world?
I guess that's too simple for our experts.
http://original.antiwar.com/srichman/2016/03/29/what-do-terrorists-want/
What I am trying to explain to you is that the major reason that otherwise moderate Muslims radicalize and join groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda is due to grievances over our foreign policy. By continuing our interventions, drone bombings, military occupations and so forth in the Middle East, we are insuring that we are creating more terrorists than we could possibly kill.
You really don't seem to understand the extent of the brutality that the US has unleashed against the Muslim world over the past several decades.
According to reliable sources, Bush and Obama's drone attacks have killed far more innocent civilians than terrorist suspects. In fact, 90% of those killed were not even suspected of being terrorists.
Do you think it is morally acceptable to support a program that kills 9 innocent people for every 1 terrorist? And those claimed to be terrorists are really just alleged terrorists, since they haven't been convicted in a court of law.
Or how about Clinton's sanctions against Iran in the 1990s? How can you endorse a policy that directly caused the deaths of 500,000 women and children? Or do you think that children who by accident of birth happened to be born in a certain country are somehow guilty by association and their lives have no value?
Policies like these create a great deal of anger and resentment throughout the entire Muslim world. It boosts recruitment to radical terrorist organizations and makes Americans far less safe.
Faisal Shahzad, who tried to ignite a car bomb in Times Square, said in court:
"I want to plead guilty, and I'm going to plead guilty 100 times over because, until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that."Richard Reid, who tried to ignite a shoe bomb aboard an airliner, told his sentencing judge:
"With regards to what you said about killing innocent people, I will say one thing. Your government has killed two million children in Iraq.... Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons."Virtually all terrorist attackers in recent years have said similar things. Hardly any of them mention wanted to get 72 virgins in paradise, or anything of that nature. The crux of their motivations, in their own words, have to do with getting revenge over our foreign interventions into their countries.
Why won't you listen?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 17, 2016, 06:52:33 PM
"Killing" and "terrorism" are distinct issues. Terrorism is a concerted political strategy. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and don't harm others. There are currently more than three million Muslims living in the United States and they have not, as a group, proven to be any more prone to crime and violence than any other group.
Most of the extremist strains of Islam originate from the Middle East and therefore other socioeconomic and political factors must be considered to explain the radical behavior. There are fundamentalist interpretations of all religions that people use to justify atrocities.
In this case, terrorism is a religious strategy not political unless you consider sharia law a political movement. When there is a terrorist attack here there always seem to be several "peaceful other muslims" who knew about the attack to come who did nothing. They may not have pulled the trigger, but dont try to stop it either, not all that peaseful is it. Your post seem to be stuck on why the U.S. is to blame, yet do not explain all of the other muslin attacks around the world, is that the U.S. fault also? It also does not explain what do they want to accomplish, the terrorist claim they are to kill infidels, is that our fault too? (yes I know you do not consider yourself to be part of "us or our")
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 17, 2016, 06:40:07 PM
Nope, that's not my point at all. My point is that US and allied forces military intervention into the middle east is the primary reason why we face the continued threat of terrorist attacks. Islam will continue to have it's own internal problems, but those problems cannot justify our military killing innocent people and interfering with the sovereignty of nations that haven't attacked us.
You still have not answered my question. That in and of itself means you are just posting BS.
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 18, 2016, 04:28:47 AM
You still have not answered my question. That in and of itself means you are just posting BS.
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 17, 2016, 04:12:24 AM
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?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 01:48:04 AMThe Orlando shooting and the motivation for Islamic terrorism...
The motivation for Islamic terrorism is found in the Quran. There is no mystery about it, e.g.,
"Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them, and blockade them, and watch for them at every lookout..." (Quran 9:5).
JWK
Obama's mission from the very start has been ___ death to America by a thousand cuts.
Quote from: s3779m on June 18, 2016, 03:18:01 AM
In this case, terrorism is a religious strategy not political unless you consider sharia law a political movement. When there is a terrorist attack here there always seem to be several "peaceful other muslims" who knew about the attack to come who did nothing. They may not have pulled the trigger, but dont try to stop it either, not all that peaseful is it. Your post seem to be stuck on why the U.S. is to blame, yet do not explain all of the other muslin attacks around the world, is that the U.S. fault also? It also does not explain what do they want to accomplish, the terrorist claim they are to kill infidels, is that our fault too? (yes I know you do not consider yourself to be part of "us or our")
Nearly all of the countries other than the United States that have suffered terrorist attacks over the past decade have been militarily involved in the middle east or are part of the United States coalition during the so-called "war on terror".
One of the main strategic goals of Islamic suicide terrorism is to incite a change in foreign policy in the targeted country. They attacked civilians in democratic nations with the goal that these civilian populations recognize the blowback that their countries foreign policy has created and put pressure on their governments to change these policies.
You've sort of made my point when you mention that the otherwise moderate and peaceful Muslims don't seem to be doing as much as they should to speak out against and try to actively prevent these terrorist attacks. Anger and resentment about our foreign policy is rampant throughout the Muslim world, and outside of it for that matter. Many who do not believe that it is proper to wage Jihad against the infidels purely out of religious principle nevertheless part of them wants revenge for the atrocities the United States military has wrought against their families and country.
Our foreign policy makes moderate Muslims sympathetic to the radical terrorist element. If we remove this antagonizing military presence and stop meddling in their affairs, the moderate elements of Islam will have much more incentive to reform their own societies and cultures. We ought to give them the right of self determination so they can work out their own problems without our constant interference.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 18, 2016, 05:16:18 PM
Nearly all of the countries other than the United States that have suffered terrorist attacks over the past decade have been militarily involved in the middle east or are part of the United States coalition during the so-called "war on terror".
One of the main strategic goals of Islamic suicide terrorism is to incite a change in foreign policy in the targeted country. They attacked civilians in democratic nations with the goal that these civilian populations recognize the blowback that their countries foreign policy has created and put pressure on their governments to change these policies.
You've sort of made my point when you mention that the otherwise moderate and peaceful Muslims don't seem to be doing as much as they should to speak out against and try to actively prevent these terrorist attacks. Anger and resentment about our foreign policy is rampant throughout the Muslim world, and outside of it for that matter. Many who do not believe that it is proper to wage Jihad against the infidels purely out of religious principle nevertheless part of them wants revenge for the atrocities the United States military has wrought against their families and country.
Our foreign policy makes moderate Muslims sympathetic to the radical terrorist element. If we remove this antagonizing military presence and stop meddling in their affairs, the moderate elements of Islam will have much more incentive to reform their own societies and cultures. We ought to give them the right of self determination so they can work out their own problems without our constant interference.
Really? Then explain the Philippines or China for that matter.
Guess what the most violent nations on earth have in common? And yes, these are the most violent places on earth.
The least peaceful countries in the world:
Syria
South Sudan
Iraq
Afghanistan
Somalia
Yemen
Central African Republic
Sudan
Libya
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 18, 2016, 05:16:18 PM
You've sort of made my point when you mention that the otherwise moderate and peaceful Muslims don't seem to be doing as much as they should to speak out against and try to actively prevent these terrorist attacks. Anger and resentment about our foreign policy is rampant throughout the Muslim world, and outside of it for that matter. Many who do not believe that it is proper to wage Jihad against the infidels purely out of religious principle nevertheless part of them wants revenge for the atrocities the United States military has wrought against their families and country.
Our foreign policy makes moderate Muslims sympathetic to the radical terrorist element. If we remove this antagonizing military presence and stop meddling in their affairs, the moderate elements of Islam will have much more incentive to reform their own societies and cultures. We ought to give them the right of self determination so they can work out their own problems without our constant interference.
When muslims know of am impending attack which will kill innocent and say nothing to prevent it, WE DO NOT CALL THEM OTHERWISE MODERATE AND PEACEFUL MUSLIMS.THEY ARE ALSO CALLED TERRORIST. And no I did not make your point, you just made mine. This is who they are.
Several years ago, a TV crew was in Tehran
doing a story about young adults in Iran
absorbing Western culture by watching satellite TV.
This one woman (maybe age 40?)
when she saw that an American TV crew was there,
went right up to the camera and said,
"America! Please do with Iran what you're doing
with Iraq and Afghanistan!"
There are A LOT of people who want to be freed
from radical Islamic regimes!
Consider the "Green Revolution" that was attempted in Iran
about four years ago.
Iran's government crushed it.
Barry The B*****d gave no supportive speeches
like he did when the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt.
For every jihadist radicalized by American drone strikes,
there are (who knows how many)
regular folks in those countries
cheering for the bombing of their oppressors!
Quote from: s3779m on June 18, 2016, 05:33:32 PM
When muslims know of am impending attack which will kill innocent and say nothing to prevent it, WE DO NOT CALL THEM OTHERWISE MODERATE AND PEACEFUL MUSLIMS.THEY ARE ALSO CALLED TERRORIST. And no I did not make your point, you just made mine. This is who they are.
And you know of US Drone policy under which over 90% of the deaths from drone strikes are innocent civilians yet you support this policy and do nothing to stop it or prevent it. Under what other scenario would killing 90% innocent people to kill 10% suspected criminals be tolerable?
Let's say the LAPD had intelligence that suggested that organized gang members rented out apartments in a particular apartment complex in Inglewood. Let's say they suspected that 8 or 9% of the tenets in that complex were gang affiliated and had been involved in criminal activity. Now let's imagine that the police department detonated a bomb that leveled the entire apartment complex, killing all you lived there just to kill those gang members.
This is the equivalent of the drone program you apparently support to attack and kill terrorists in Middle Eastern countries.
If everything you say about the religion of Islam is correct, it still cannot excuse the murder of innocents. If the particular group of people who were suffering under these policies happened to be a group that you don't despise, you'd probably empathize with them and consider it morally reprehensible to commit such war crimes against them. But morality goes out the window when you can target a group you don't like.
Quote from: je_freedom on June 18, 2016, 07:07:00 PM
Several years ago, a TV crew was in Tehran
doing a story about young adults in Iran
absorbing Western culture by watching satellite TV.
This one woman (maybe age 40?)
when she saw that an American TV crew was there,
went right up to the camera and said,
"America! Please do with Iran what you're doing
with Iraq and Afghanistan!"
There are A LOT of people who want to be freed
from radical Islamic regimes!
Consider the "Green Revolution" that was attempted in Iran
about four years ago.
Iran's government crushed it.
Barry The B*****d gave no supportive speeches
like he did when the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt.
For every jihadist radicalized by American drone strikes,
there are (who knows how many)
regular folks in those countries
cheering for the bombing of their oppressors!
Which country have we left freer due to our military interventions? It is the height of naivete to believe that our military is motivated by an altruistic desire to free Muslim people from radical regimes. What has happened time and time again is that the regime that rises to power after we overthrow a government is just as bad or even worse.
Saddam was not a good person by any stretch, but the average person living in Iraq prior to our overthrow of his regime was far freer than they are now that the radicals have taken over in the wake of our military destroying their country.
Also, these decent people who would like nothing more than to be freed from their oppressive regimes are also being killed in our drone strikes, during our sanctions and so forth.
True revolutions and reforms have to come from within. We can't engineer a lasting reform by nation building.
Every word here equally applies to the hatred shown by the Muslim filth who took down the World Trade Center twin towers. You break into tears about everyone EXCEPT the Muslim killer? Why is that?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 18, 2016, 11:08:05 PM
If everything you say about the religion of Islam is correct, it still cannot excuse the murder of innocents. If the particular group of people who were suffering under these policies happened to be a group that you don't despise, you'd probably empathize with them and consider it morally reprehensible to commit such war crimes against them. But morality goes out the window when you can target a group you don't like.
"
If"? Only leftist trash would dare insinuate the Islam of today is NOT a pack of violent animals intent on global domination---who openly say so.
Leftist trash from top to bottom if you cannot see the events of 9/11 are all we need to prove the HATRED IS THEIRS, NOT OURS, and Ft. Hood and all those other cases of muslim terrorism which have followed only reinforce this.
Leftist trash expect us to forget that many died in an act of Muslim terror...whilst our apologist news media calls Orlando's Islamoanimal Spring Prom "the largest act of mass murder in recent history," neglecting to mention the REAL Muslim-terrorist act of all....
Don't feed us lies about "if." September 11, 2001 was NOT an "if." And it was not an "if" that THIS Islamoanimal did this for the false god, the running dog Allah, and his false prophet, the running dog Mohammed, may piss be upon them both, amen.
See this! Queers for Trump!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IoTQlDh9U
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 18, 2016, 11:08:05 PM
And you know of US Drone policy under which over 90% of the deaths from drone strikes are innocent civilians yet you support this policy and do nothing to stop it or prevent it. Under what other scenario would killing 90% innocent people to kill 10% suspected criminals be tolerable?
Let's say the LAPD had intelligence that suggested that organized gang members rented out apartments in a particular apartment complex in Inglewood. Let's say they suspected that 8 or 9% of the tenets in that complex were gang affiliated and had been involved in criminal activity. Now let's imagine that the police department detonated a bomb that leveled the entire apartment complex, killing all you lived there just to kill those gang members.
This is the equivalent of the drone program you apparently support to attack and kill terrorists in Middle Eastern countries.
If everything you say about the religion of Islam is correct, it still cannot excuse the murder of innocents. If the particular group of people who were suffering under these policies happened to be a group that you don't despise, you'd probably empathize with them and consider it morally reprehensible to commit such war crimes against them. But morality goes out the window when you can target a group you don't like.
We are going after the bad guys and will stop when they are gone. We know the purpose of the drone attacks and horrible as they are, they do kill the bad guys. Terrorist go after innocents with no real target in mind. As to this comment " Under what other scenario would killing 90% innocent people to kill 10% suspected criminals be tolerable?" go back to your history books and re-look at the bombing in WWII. the bombing in Europe could hardly be called pinpoint accuracy, yes civilians were killed. Look at Japan and how many American lives were saved by shorting the war, and yes again civilians were killed. As to this "
Let's say the LAPD had intelligence that suggested that organized gang members rented out apartments in a particular apartment complex in Inglewood. Let's say they suspected that 8 or 9% of the tenets in that complex were gang affiliated and had been involved in criminal activity. Now let's imagine that the police department detonated a bomb that leveled the entire apartment complex, killing all you lived there just to kill those gang members." Our police have the freedom to move around and go where they need to go, they can call in backup and seal of the entire area. Not so over there. Your example does not work, at all.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 18, 2016, 11:08:05 PM
And you know of US Drone policy under which over 90% of the deaths from drone strikes are innocent civilians yet you support this policy and do nothing to stop it or prevent it. Under what other scenario would killing 90% innocent people to kill 10% suspected criminals be tolerable?
Let's say the LAPD had intelligence that suggested that organized gang members rented out apartments in a particular apartment complex in Inglewood. Let's say they suspected that 8 or 9% of the tenets in that complex were gang affiliated and had been involved in criminal activity. Now let's imagine that the police department detonated a bomb that leveled the entire apartment complex, killing all you lived there just to kill those gang members.
This is the equivalent of the drone program you apparently support to attack and kill terrorists in Middle Eastern countries.
If everything you say about the religion of Islam is correct, it still cannot excuse the murder of innocents. If the particular group of people who were suffering under these policies happened to be a group that you don't despise, you'd probably empathize with them and consider it morally reprehensible to commit such war crimes against them. But morality goes out the window when you can target a group you don't like.
CRY ME A FUCKIN RIVER!
If you're going to use statistics, exaggerating and lying only exposes you for the leftist troll you are.
The truth is, it's the Marxist in the WH doing it for one, and second, that 90% stat was only a tiny window in time.
Documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.
The upside? They were majority Muscum, yeah, the Muscum Marxist is killing off so called innocents of his own ilk, but in all honesty, that's where majority Muscum deaths occur, at the hands of their own.
Quote from: quiller on June 18, 2016, 11:34:14 PM
"If"? Only leftist trash would dare insinuate the Islam of today is NOT a pack of violent animals intent on global domination---who openly say so.
Leftist trash from top to bottom if you cannot see the events of 9/11 are all we need to prove the HATRED IS THEIRS, NOT OURS, and Ft. Hood and all those other cases of muslim terrorism which have followed only reinforce this.
Leftist trash expect us to forget that many died in an act of Muslim terror...whilst our apologist news media calls Orlando's Islamoanimal Spring Prom "the largest act of mass murder in recent history," neglecting to mention the REAL Muslim-terrorist act of all....
Don't feed us lies about "if." September 11, 2001 was NOT an "if." And it was not an "if" that THIS Islamoanimal did this for the false god, the running dog Allah, and his false prophet, the running dog Mohammed, may piss be upon them both, amen.
The bottom line is, the Muslim religion is incompatible with America's values and way of life, and every European country which has opened its arms to Muslims is paying the consequences! And just what have been the consequences? Let us take a look:
Muslim Immigrants Riot in Italy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ENV3ZYmAqg)
10,000 MUSLIM EXTREMISTS RIOT AND CHASE NON MUSLIMS IN LONDON (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me9MIie4r30)
Muslims riot in Paris, France (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO8ZF6ghvl0)
Muslim riots in German immigration center (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoJIDgTKc6k)
Muslims riot in Athens, Greece (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhsNLPx7UvA)
Brussels: Islamic State launches attacks on airport and station – as it happened (http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/mar/22/brussels-airport-explosions-live-updates)
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the personal economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America's borders.
"If you support these military interventions you must share some of the culpability for the blowback that has predictably resulted from those ill-conceived actions."
Amen. The Founders are surely turning in their graves over our current foreign policy. It is everything they feared it could become. We are an empire now - that is the main reason we are hated. Not "hated for our freedom." We need to mind our own business more.
God bless.
Quote from: CitizenWriter on June 19, 2016, 06:07:02 PM
"If you support these military interventions you must share some of the culpability for the blowback that has predictably resulted from those ill-conceived actions."
Always credit your source.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 17, 2016, 11:19:22 PM
I would like you to read this short article by libertarian author and scholar Sheldon Richman:
http://original.antiwar.com/srichman/2016/03/29/what-do-terrorists-want/
What I am trying to explain to you is that the major reason that otherwise moderate Muslims radicalize and join groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda is due to grievances over our foreign policy. By continuing our interventions, drone bombings, military occupations and so forth in the Middle East, we are insuring that we are creating more terrorists than we could possibly kill.
You really don't seem to understand the extent of the brutality that the US has unleashed against the Muslim world over the past several decades.
According to reliable sources, Bush and Obama's drone attacks have killed far more innocent civilians than terrorist suspects. In fact, 90% of those killed were not even suspected of being terrorists.
Do you think it is morally acceptable to support a program that kills 9 innocent people for every 1 terrorist? And those claimed to be terrorists are really just alleged terrorists, since they haven't been convicted in a court of law.
Or how about Clinton's sanctions against Iran in the 1990s? How can you endorse a policy that directly caused the deaths of 500,000 women and children? Or do you think that children who by accident of birth happened to be born in a certain country are somehow guilty by association and their lives have no value?
Policies like these create a great deal of anger and resentment throughout the entire Muslim world. It boosts recruitment to radical terrorist organizations and makes Americans far less safe.
Faisal Shahzad, who tried to ignite a car bomb in Times Square, said in court:
"I want to plead guilty, and I'm going to plead guilty 100 times over because, until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that."
Richard Reid, who tried to ignite a shoe bomb aboard an airliner, told his sentencing judge:
"With regards to what you said about killing innocent people, I will say one thing. Your government has killed two million children in Iraq.... Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons."
Virtually all terrorist attackers in recent years have said similar things. Hardly any of them mention wanted to get 72 virgins in paradise, or anything of that nature. The crux of their motivations, in their own words, have to do with getting revenge over our foreign interventions into their countries.
Why won't you listen?
Okay I read the article by this guy whomever the hell he is or thinks he is....doesn;t change my mind .....WHY won't I listen....because you, the people you are reading the "social scientists' you are reading are entirely wrong.
I don;t depend on such sources for my information, since for 11 years after a long career in Law Enforcement I went overseas and worked in the private security field, I started in East Timor in the middle of a Muslim revolution/power grab worked in Singapore as a private security contractor, Thailand and later the Philippines in Mindanao....In Now President Duterte's home town Davao.
What I learned about Islamic terrorism no "social scientist" can hope to ever understand.
IT IS ALL ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL
Those people don;t give a flying rats ass about anything but staying on top spreading the wealth around with their immediate Clan/extended family and their own empowerment.
I heard a joke once about how can you tell a Muslim terrorist....he is the barefoot one who has a $3,000 rocket launcher, a $1,000 rifle, barefoot coz he can;t afford a pair of shoes.
That about sums it up, you have no clue when it comes to the mentality of the third world Islamic terrorist. Take East Timor and the Southern Philippines....dozens of different ethnic cultures, languages and all divided up into clans and tribes, The thing with East Timor was the Muzz were mad because the Christians were in power and started all the businesses and were making money as peaceful enterprising people often do....around come the Muzz who like Fkg gangsters they are want a piece of the action, when they get a 'no' they go ballistic and throw a molotov cocktail at the Christian's business and maybe whip on him with bamboo slats for good measure.
The reason for this is simple Muzz will tell you..."we are a warrior people" when you refuse us...we fight...."
Thats the mentality you are dealing with, this goes back CENTURIES, these people are the decendants of Pirate, Raiders and warriors...THATS ALL THEY KNOW, that is their tradition.
Philippines the same way, you have something like seven different seperatist movements just among the Muslim/Moro (Bangasamoro) alone, always fighting each other for control, then along come these absolute scum like the Abu Sayeef (who just recently beheaded some kidnapped tourists). And its all about money and power...they are just bandits and pirates plain and simple.
And See, the US (And Australia and Great Britain) and a few other countries try to stop all this insane shit, but you can;t, you can;t deal with them because as they say in Asia
"GIVE THE MORO YOUr FINGERNAIL AND HE NEXT WANTS YOUR ARM"
There is only one thing these people understand. FORCE.
Oh and since you were bleeding your heart out over drones I am happy to say that during the Balikatan 'exercises' in the Southern Philippines the US Droned several of those evil sons of Bitches ABu Sayeef into bloody smoking chunks for kidnapping AMerican Missionaries The Burnhams, beheading an American, Raping little catholic school Girls and killing various helpless fishermen and farmers.
Now wake up, put down the books by various eggheads and get yourself a good dose of reality.
Quote from: quiller on June 18, 2016, 11:34:14 PM
Every word here equally applies to the hatred shown by the Muslim filth who took down the World Trade Center twin towers. You break into tears about everyone EXCEPT the Muslim killer? Why is that?
"If"? Only leftist trash would dare insinuate the Islam of today is NOT a pack of violent animals intent on global domination---who openly say so.
Leftist trash from top to bottom if you cannot see the events of 9/11 are all we need to prove the HATRED IS THEIRS, NOT OURS, and Ft. Hood and all those other cases of muslim terrorism which have followed only reinforce this.
Leftist trash expect us to forget that many died in an act of Muslim terror...whilst our apologist news media calls Orlando's Islamoanimal Spring Prom "the largest act of mass murder in recent history," neglecting to mention the REAL Muslim-terrorist act of all....
Don't feed us lies about "if." September 11, 2001 was NOT an "if." And it was not an "if" that THIS Islamoanimal did this for the false god, the running dog Allah, and his false prophet, the running dog Mohammed, may piss be upon them both, amen.
I never excuse the action of terrorists who target innocent civilians and I explicitly said this. But even reprehensible people have motivations for their actions. And, if you listen to what the terrorists actually SAY, they claim they are fighting for retribution. Retribution for our foreign policy, specifically military intervention into their countries. You don't want to face this reality.
Furthermore, your scapegoating of the religion of Islam by implication indicts 1.6 BILLION people on the planet who belong to the Muslim faith. How many actual Muslims do you know on a personal level? I have met many Muslims in my lifetime and have been friends with several. It is only rational to have hatred and anger towards terrorists who murder innocents. But to spread that anger to over a billion people who don't condone the violence inflicted by terrorists is just crude bigotry.
Sure Islam has a problem with fundamentalist groups, which all religions have to some degree. And this internal problem would not disappear entirely if we changed our foreign policy. However, the Muslim world at large has some very real and legitimate grievances about how their people, including women and children, have been targeted, enslaved and murdered by our military policy for decades.
Do you understand how recognizing this reality does not excuse terrorist attacks that kill innocents? We had a right and an obligation to respond after the attacks on 9/11. Understanding that the motivations for those attacks had to do with our foreign policy and not just Islamic teaching doesn't mean that we don't bring to justice those that commit war crimes against us.
But we should have responded much differently, targeting Osama bin Laden and those directly responsible for the planning and execution of the terrorist attacks. But we also should have changed our foreign policy by removing our military bases from the Middle East and stopping all of our interventions into that part of the world. If intervening stirs up hatred against us, bolsters terrorist recruitment and makes Americans less safe, it is wise to change policy even from a purely pragmatic perspective.
I am sticking up for my Muslim friends who I know don't believe what ISIS or Al Qaeda believe. You are trying to lump them in with these violent murderers and I won't stand for that.
Why have all the scholarly studies that have been done on the subject supported my position?
Robert Pape, as I said, is the world's leading expert on the motivations for suicide terrorism. This is what he says:
"
What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we've just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that's what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else."
http://www.thenation.com/article/heres-what-a-man-who-studied-every-suicide-attack-in-the-world-says-about-isiss-motives/
I am presenting facts and information and you won't even look at them. I'd also note that the very conservative former CIA expert on Osama bin Laden Michael Scheuer agrees with Pape and me so this isn't a point of view put forward by leftists with an agenda.
Quote from: s3779m on June 19, 2016, 03:14:01 AM
We are going after the bad guys and will stop when they are gone. We know the purpose of the drone attacks and horrible as they are, they do kill the bad guys. Terrorist go after innocents with no real target in mind. As to this comment " Under what other scenario would killing 90% innocent people to kill 10% suspected criminals be tolerable?" go back to your history books and re-look at the bombing in WWII. the bombing in Europe could hardly be called pinpoint accuracy, yes civilians were killed. Look at Japan and how many American lives were saved by shorting the war, and yes again civilians were killed. As to this "
Let's say the LAPD had intelligence that suggested that organized gang members rented out apartments in a particular apartment complex in Inglewood. Let's say they suspected that 8 or 9% of the tenets in that complex were gang affiliated and had been involved in criminal activity. Now let's imagine that the police department detonated a bomb that leveled the entire apartment complex, killing all you lived there just to kill those gang members." Our police have the freedom to move around and go where they need to go, they can call in backup and seal of the entire area. Not so over there. Your example does not work, at all.
Let's say you are a non-radical or even a non-Muslim who happens to live in a Middle Eastern nation that we are currently bombing with drones. Suppose your family, who have no connections to terrorism, were killed at a wedding while people like yourself wrote it off as "collateral damage". What reaction would you have? You're living in constant fear because these flying robots that are remotely controlled by guys living and working in Nevada are dropping bombs on your country, killing 90% totally innocent people? You don't know when or where our videogame pilots are going to strike next, so you live in constant fear.
Most rational people, irrespective of religion, are going to want revenge for their murdered friends and family. More people become radicalized by these military actions than are killed by the strikes.
You can't kill them all. It's an impossibility.
Quote from: CitizenWriter on June 19, 2016, 06:07:02 PM
"If you support these military interventions you must share some of the culpability for the blowback that has predictably resulted from those ill-conceived actions."
Amen. The Founders are surely turning in their graves over our current foreign policy. It is everything they feared it could become. We are an empire now - that is the main reason we are hated. Not "hated for our freedom." We need to mind our own business more.
God bless.
Hallelujah. I'm glad you see at least one other sane and rational person post on this thread. Wading through the same tired neo-conservative talking points and thinly veiled bigotry used to justify US war crimes against the Muslim world grows tiring.
So, appreciate your comment. It is odd how conservatives who, in every other context, would be supporting and citing the Founders somehow ignore their foreign policy views.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 19, 2016, 11:45:35 PM
Let's say you are a non-radical or even a non-Muslim who happens to live in a Middle Eastern nation that we are currently bombing with drones. Suppose your family, who have no connections to terrorism, were killed at a wedding while people like yourself wrote it off as "collateral damage". What reaction would you have? You're living in constant fear because these flying robots that are remotely controlled by guys living and working in Nevada are dropping bombs on your country, killing 90% totally innocent people? You don't know when or where our videogame pilots are going to strike next, so you live in constant fear.
Most rational people, irrespective of religion, are going to want revenge for their murdered friends and family. More people become radicalized by these military actions than are killed by the strikes.
You can't kill them all. It's an impossibility.
You just described what the Israelis live in every day. Do you blame them too. I am sure with a little effort you should be able to find a forum that would welcome this b.s. you have been posting with open arms. There are several groups out there who feel the U.S. is to blame for all of the worlds problems. Here is a hint: use the term "liberal" in your search bar.
Quote from: s3779m on June 20, 2016, 03:07:11 AM
You just described what the Israelis live in every day. Do you blame them too. I am sure with a little effort you should be able to find a forum that would welcome this b.s. you have been posting with open arms. There are several groups out there who feel the U.S. is to blame for all of the worlds problems. Here is a hint: use the term "liberal" in your search bar.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nailed it!
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 19, 2016, 11:38:27 PM
I never excuse the action of terrorists who target innocent civilians and I explicitly said this. But even reprehensible people have motivations for their actions. And, if you listen to what the terrorists actually SAY, they claim they are fighting for retribution. Retribution for our foreign policy, specifically military intervention into their countries. You don't want to face this reality.
YOU STILL DON'T GET IT....Of course these assholes are going to say this is in retaliation for US Foreign policy and Military intervention BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO FIGHT THE US MILITARY, they are happier fighting their own internal (Corrupt and ineffective) militaries. Of course they want us to stop and withdraw....THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE GOING TO CEASE AND DESIST with terrorist operations now does it? With the US(and other allied countries) out of the way they are free to run rampant and extend their power and control over more and more territory and continue to cow the civilian population, Muzz and non Muzz.
Look at the example I gave of East Timor and the PHilippines....I could have included other countries as well but the theme is the same, you have an ill equipped, ill trained internal military going after the bad guys who are BETTER ARMED, BETTER EQUIPPED and
Better funded thanks to your friends in
Saudi Arabia and IranRetribution with these people GOES BACK CENTURIES, you can't change History, so if it was a "mistake" to invade Afghanistan then the "Mistake" will stand for another 100 or 200 years or more with this mentality. Because you stop doesn't guarantee they will stop and a matter of fact there is more evidence to support my position than there is yours.
That's what these authors and "experts" of yours don't tell you.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 20, 2016, 06:05:51 AM
YOU STILL DON'T GET IT....Of course these assholes are going to say this is in retaliation for US Foreign policy and Military intervention BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO FIGHT THE US MILITARY, they are happier fighting their own internal (Corrupt and ineffective) militaries. Of course they want us to stop and withdraw....THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE GOING TO CEASE AND DESIST with terrorist operations now does it? With the US(and other allied countries) out of the way they are free to run rampant and extend their power and control over more and more territory and continue to cow the civilian population, Muzz and non Muzz.
Look at the example I gave of East Timor and the PHilippines....I could have included other countries as well but the theme is the same, you have an ill equipped, ill trained internal military going after the bad guys who are BETTER ARMED, BETTER EQUIPPED and Better funded thanks to your friends in Saudi Arabia and Iran
Retribution with these people GOES BACK CENTURIES, you can't change History, so if it was a "mistake" to invade Afghanistan then the "Mistake" will stand for another 100 or 200 years or more with this mentality. Because you stop doesn't guarantee they will stop and a matter of fact there is more evidence to support my position than there is yours.
That's what these authors and "experts" of yours don't tell you.
Nooooo Billy!!! Muscum would never deceive us infidels and mislead us as to why they want us all dead, despite the fact that their so called religion encourages falseflag attacks and outright lies, Muscum are beyond reproach, just ask John, they are the victims. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 19, 2016, 11:51:01 PM
>>>>
So, appreciate your comment. It is odd how conservatives who, in every other context, would be supporting and citing the Founders somehow ignore their foreign policy views.
Yes, I agree. It is a bit alienating to my generation (under 30). No, more than a bit, actually.
Not to be immodest, but I think I have the views I do (on foreign policy in this case) because I read a lot of what the Founders wrote. And in the
original, not filtered through some pinhead with an agenda.
God bless.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 19, 2016, 11:38:27 PM
"What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we've just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that's what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else."
http://www.thenation.com/article/heres-what-a-man-who-studied-every-suicide-attack-in-the-world-says-about-isiss-motives/
I am presenting facts and information and you won't even look at them. I'd also note that the very conservative former CIA expert on Osama bin Laden Michael Scheuer agrees with Pape and me so this isn't a point of view put forward by leftists with an agenda.
From a commie website, and you expect to be taken seriously?
They have an agenda if you haven't noticed and propping up enemy propaganda is what marxists do, 'my enemies, enemy is my friend, so right now, Muscum and Dims are aligning.
You did know that, right?
Why do you ignore reality? I showed you there is a history of Muscum violence and slavery when Jefferson was left with no choice but to go to war and when queried, the Muscum exclaimed he was driven by his religious edict of killing and enslaving the infidel.
Remember when Clinton attacked bosnia on behalf of Muscums? Look how we were repaid, 911.
Quote from: Solar on June 20, 2016, 06:34:55 AM
Remember when Clinton attacked bosnia on behalf of Muscums? Look how we were repaid, 911.
That's true. Clinton sided with the Muslims against the Serbs.
I knew a guy who attended a conference in Corfu, Greece
when that was going on.
He told everyone there he was Canadian because all the Greeks
(Eastern Orthodox) were outraged at Clinton.
And then there are all the Eastern Orthodox terrorist attacks
over here in retaliation against U.S. foreign policy.
Oh wait, there weren't any.
Quote from: s3779m on June 20, 2016, 03:07:11 AM
You just described what the Israelis live in every day. Do you blame them too. I am sure with a little effort you should be able to find a forum that would welcome this b.s. you have been posting with open arms. There are several groups out there who feel the U.S. is to blame for all of the worlds problems. Here is a hint: use the term "liberal" in your search bar.
I'm sure many Israelis are fearful of terrorist attacks against them. Personally, I believe in a two state solution where Netanyahu and his government get out of the West Bank and treat the Palestinians better. Israel has a very competent defense and the average Israeli is far safer in Tel Aviv than are peoples living in nations that US military has been intervening in.
If what I am posting is BS, then you ought to be able to refute it, yet you haven't even tried. Again, and I get sick of having to repeat myself, I never said that "the U.S. is to blame for all of the worlds problems". Your creating a straw man.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 20, 2016, 06:05:51 AM
YOU STILL DON'T GET IT....Of course these assholes are going to say this is in retaliation for US Foreign policy and Military intervention BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO FIGHT THE US MILITARY, they are happier fighting their own internal (Corrupt and ineffective) militaries. Of course they want us to stop and withdraw....THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE GOING TO CEASE AND DESIST with terrorist operations now does it? With the US(and other allied countries) out of the way they are free to run rampant and extend their power and control over more and more territory and continue to cow the civilian population, Muzz and non Muzz.
Look at the example I gave of East Timor and the PHilippines....I could have included other countries as well but the theme is the same, you have an ill equipped, ill trained internal military going after the bad guys who are BETTER ARMED, BETTER EQUIPPED and Better funded thanks to your friends in Saudi Arabia and Iran
Retribution with these people GOES BACK CENTURIES, you can't change History, so if it was a "mistake" to invade Afghanistan then the "Mistake" will stand for another 100 or 200 years or more with this mentality. Because you stop doesn't guarantee they will stop and a matter of fact there is more evidence to support my position than there is yours.
That's what these authors and "experts" of yours don't tell you.
You're the one who doesn't get it, unfortunately. Let me break this down to a few simple questions for you.
1. Do you think that US military interventions into middle eastern nations over the past few decades have caused more people to be recruited into radical terrorist organizations than would otherwise be the case? There are MANY non-Muslim nations around the world and if this fight was purely over a desire to kill the infidel, then we would expect a fairly equal distribution of attacks against all non-Muslim nations. Yet, the United States and it's allies in the "war on terror" are singled out.
Al Qaeda and ISIS have to be able to show with their propaganda why the West is evil and deserves to be attacked. If you have the daily experience of innocent Muslims being killed by the US military, you have a fertile atmosphere to recruit. General anger towards the United States already exists, and it doesn't take much to compel a person to join an effort that they think will provide a modicum of revenge for their murdered relatives.
2. Robert Pape, and others who have studied this issue, have found that the incidents of suicide terrorism dramatically decrease once the occupying nation removes its military forces, bases and interference with the country they were occupying. Pape has compiled a database of every single terrorist attack throughout the world since 1980. His research has been vetted and combed through by thousands of others over the years who have been unable to disprove his conclusions.
I am not asking you to accept the religion of Islam or excuse it's radical elements. But I am asking you to recognize how the Muslim world feels when we bomb them, killing civilians, place sanctions on nations or prop up puppet dictators. You and I wouldn't like it if a foreign nation did that to us, and they don't like it when we do it to them. This has nothing to do with their religion, it is a normal human response to being on the receiving end of aggression military attacks that were not provoked.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 20, 2016, 06:05:31 PM
You're the one who doesn't get it, unfortunately.
Hmm...
https://player.vimeo.com/video/167607521?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0
Quote from: walkstall on June 20, 2016, 06:31:25 PM
Hmm...
https://player.vimeo.com/video/167607521?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0
Very nicely summed up
Quote from: Solar on June 20, 2016, 06:17:20 AM
Nooooo Billy!!! Muscum would never deceive us infidels and mislead us as to why they want us all dead, despite the fact that their so called religion encourages falseflag attacks and outright lies, Muscum are beyond reproach, just ask John, they are the victims. :rolleyes:
Okay, so if you or I had our family killed by a drone, or our democratically elected government overthrown by a foreign power and a repressive tyrant was installed in his place, we'd both probably want revenge against the foreign power who did this to us, right?
This is explicitly what almost all Muslim terrorists have said over the past twenty years. But you are convinced that they are all telling lies about what is motivating them?
Even if you don't accept that revenge for US foreign policy is the ONLY motivation, surely you could accept that it is a large factor that is motivating their hatred for the United States and their desire to launch attacks against us. People are people, regardless of the religion they belong to or the part of the world they happen to have been born in. All you have to do is put yourself in the position of a regular person living in Iraq or Afghanistan who suffered from US foreign policy to understand how they would react.
Tell me specifically the reason why all these terrorists would be lying about their motivations for launching attacks against us? If their end goal is a worldwide caliphate and the triumph of radical Islam over the entire globe, it would be in their interest to "spread the gospel" as it were and denounce the infidels for their transgressions against Islamic teachings. Why would they want to distract from this message by complaining of US foreign policy?
Again, I'll remind you that Robert Pape's research has concluded that suicide terrorism is motivated primarily by military occupation of a nation. Once that occupation is abandoned, troops are removed, bases are closed and intervention into the foreign nation is ended, the suicide terrorism against the occupying force ends.
This is the conclusion that Pape and his team reached after examining more than 4000 incidents of suicide terrorism throughout the world since 1980. Have you yet watched the video of Pape that I linked to or read the article I posted?
Quote from: CitizenWriter on June 20, 2016, 06:21:51 AM
Yes, I agree. It is a bit alienating to my generation (under 30). No, more than a bit, actually.
Not to be immodest, but I think I have the views I do (on foreign policy in this case) because I read a lot of what the Founders wrote. And in the original, not filtered through some pinhead with an agenda.
God bless.
Go "not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." - John Quincy Adams
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson
Were close to the same age probably (I'm 31), and this is a generational problem as much as anything. Younger conservatives (I'm assuming you identify as conservative?) tend to have much more libertarian views on foreign policy than do older conservatives who were raised on Cold War propaganda.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 20, 2016, 06:05:31 PM
You're the one who doesn't get it, unfortunately. Let me break this down to a few simple questions for you.
1. Do you think that US military interventions into middle eastern nations over the past few decades have caused more people to be recruited into radical terrorist organizations than would otherwise be the case? There are MANY non-Muslim nations around the world and if this fight was purely over a desire to kill the infidel, then we would expect a fairly equal distribution of attacks against all non-Muslim nations. Yet, the United States and it's allies in the "war on terror" are singled out.
Al Qaeda and ISIS have to be able to show with their propaganda why the West is evil and deserves to be attacked. If you have the daily experience of innocent Muslims being killed by the US military, you have a fertile atmosphere to recruit. General anger towards the United States already exists, and it doesn't take much to compel a person to join an effort that they think will provide a modicum of revenge for their murdered relatives.
2. Robert Pape, and others who have studied this issue, have found that the incidents of suicide terrorism dramatically decrease once the occupying nation removes its military forces, bases and interference with the country they were occupying. Pape has compiled a database of every single terrorist attack throughout the world since 1980. His research has been vetted and combed through by thousands of others over the years who have been unable to disprove his conclusions.
I am not asking you to accept the religion of Islam or excuse it's radical elements. But I am asking you to recognize how the Muslim world feels when we bomb them, killing civilians, place sanctions on nations or prop up puppet dictators. You and I wouldn't like it if a foreign nation did that to us, and they don't like it when we do it to them. This has nothing to do with their religion, it is a normal human response to being on the receiving end of aggressioand n military attacks that were not provoked.
1. Once again let me reiterate, I think the rise in Islamic terrorist recruiting is due to two things....first the facilitation by our Govt IE Obamao who at every opportunity apologizes for US action, facilitates the immigration of Muslims with little or no background check, wont even say the words radical islamic terrorism, invited the Muslim Brotherhood into the White house for tea, hampers the investigation of radical groups etc etc . Second the use of mass media in recruiting, its almost chic, cool, the in thing to do.....come to Syria and be a terrorist, its cool it's fun.....these people glorify their fiendish behavior and the media plays right along reporting on the gore and savagery just like some sick TV show or slasher movie. It's exciting to these 18 19 and twenty year old Jerk off LOSERS who know nothing of the real world. But with the click of a button can bring it all home. Last, there is a concentrated effort ONLINE by these scum aimed at recruiting the young, dumb and vulnerable the disaffected and disenfranchised, IT TAKES MONEY TO DO THAT, MOney that comes from terrorist support nations like Iran and Saudi.
2. I'd like to talk to Pape to see his take on Russia, The Former Soviet Union who started this whole mess when they invaded Afghanistan. Maybe he can explain from his perch on the lofty pillars of his so called expertise why none of these
assholes target Russia despite their destruction of Muslim Chechnia, their brutality in Afghanistan and their support for dictators like Syria's Assad....I'll tell you why.....SPETSNAZ ....and of course Putin.
SPETSNAZ are the feared Russian special forces who delight in killing terrorists, sending their balls gift wrapped to their families and then kill the familes, even the infants and small children, they are completely ruthless. You don;t F*k with the Russians because they don't care. Look what happens....A few years back a group of armed Chechin's takes over a whole theater full of people in Moscow, the Russians wait a few days, pump the place full of gas which probably kills some of the hundred or so hostages along with the bad guys as well then pump a few rounds behind each gassed out/ passed out Terrorists' left ear for good measure.
The message is clear, go ahead and kill the hostages, or better yet we'll kill them for you and then kill you, after we identify your corpse then we are coming to get your families....we will wipe your seed out from the earth forever.
Faced with that type of mentality the terrorist knows that any operation aimed at such a resolute
warrior NATION will fail. If it is one thing I learned dealing with third world asswipes is that Savages understand
savagery when it is turned against them.
It used to be that the US was such a nation....no more, we are a bunch of wimps, faint hearts and flat out cowards, very divided and have no stomach for the fight anymore. These people know it, they sense our cowardice, our reluctance, our pevishness and that is what feeds them....THEY KNOW THEY ARE WINNING because we lack the unity and most importantly the will to be like Putin's thugs.
You and a few others constantly bring up "The Founders"....what do you, Mr Pape or Mister Rodgers and the tooth Fairy seriously think the founders would do faced with the actions of Islamic terrorism? Crawl in a hole and hope that it passed or would they load up their flint locks, sharpen their swords, knot some hemp and hunt such persons down like dogs and hang them from the nearest oak....
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 20, 2016, 07:32:38 PM
A few years back a group of armed Chechin's takes over a whole theater full of people in Moscow, the Russians wait a few days, pump the place full of gas which probably kills some of the hundred or so hostages along with the bad guys as well then pump a few rounds behind each gassed out/ passed out Terrorists' left ear for good measure.
Twenty years ago, my sympathy was for the Chechens,
who were the last nation Russia conquered
before becoming the Soviet Union.
They were fighting for their independence.
But then the Chechens attacked a school
and shot children in the back as they fled
(many more than that nutjob did at Sandy Hook CT).
That changed my mind about the Chechens.
Quote from: je_freedom on June 20, 2016, 07:46:33 PM
Twenty years ago, my sympathy was for the Chechens,
who were the last nation Russia conquered
before becoming the Soviet Union.
They were fighting for their independence.
But then the Chechens attacked a school
and shot children in the back as they fled
(many more than that nutjob did at Sandy Hook CT).
That changed my mind about the Chechens.
We imported a bunch of those SOB's in the USA because they were "victims" of Russian brutality.....which gave us the Tsarnaev brothers..... that further goes to illustrate my point. Russia deals with them one way and we rush to bring them to the USA where they turn on us like a bunch of rabid snakes.
Quote from: tac on June 20, 2016, 07:41:15 PM
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
This is an easy game to play. I'll do the same citing bible passages.
Leviticus:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
How many Christians do you know that literally believe the above and act out God's commandments? Similarly, most Muslims do NOT accept a literal interpretation of the Quran. I'm an agnostic and an opponent of all organized religion on principle. These organized, hierarchical religions are all hogwash as far as I am concerned, but I don't pretend that most religious people accept a literal interpretation of their holy books and scriptures.
I understand that you have a very strong emotional attachment to denouncing the religion of Islam, but at bare minimum you've got to recognize that there are other motivating factors for the Muslim world to strike back at the United States. The preponderance of evidence is clearly on my side, yet you have some psychological block that is preventing you from conceding the point that aggressive military policy yields blowback. The CIA has known about this for decades.
Do you understand my point about how you can cite almost any ancient religious text and it would have passages that advocate for various sorts of atrocities? I concede there are degrees of difference between different religions, but it strikes me as absurd for you to think that the average citizen of Iraq or Afghanistan is more motivated by a pure allegiance to the literal word of a 1000+ year old religious text than they are having their families murdered by US bombs.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 20, 2016, 05:51:11 PM
I'm sure many Israelis are fearful of terrorist attacks against them. Personally, I believe in a two state solution where Netanyahu and his government get out of the West Bank and treat the Palestinians better. Israel has a very competent defense and the average Israeli is far safer in Tel Aviv than are peoples living in nations that US military has been intervening in.
If what I am posting is BS, then you ought to be able to refute it, yet you haven't even tried. Again, and I get sick of having to repeat myself, I never said that "the U.S. is to blame for all of the worlds problems". Your creating a straw man.
You have been refuted every step of the way by everyone who has responded to you. Part of the problem here, you are offering as fact what one mans opinion is. There have been post after post which show you where he/you is/are wrong, and have backed them up with facts,you are the one who does not get it. You keep coming with with imaginary examples and then accuse me of creating a straw man?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 21, 2016, 12:08:48 AM
This is an easy game to play. I'll do the same citing bible passages.
Leviticus:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
How many Christians do you know that literally believe the above and act out God's commandments? Similarly, most Muslims do NOT accept a literal interpretation of the Quran. I'm an agnostic and an opponent of all organized religion on principle. These organized, hierarchical religions are all hogwash as far as I am concerned, but I don't pretend that most religious people accept a literal interpretation of their holy books and scriptures.
I understand that you have a very strong emotional attachment to denouncing the religion of Islam, but at bare minimum you've got to recognize that there are other motivating factors for the Muslim world to strike back at the United States. The preponderance of evidence is clearly on my side, yet you have some psychological block that is preventing you from conceding the point that aggressive military policy yields blowback. The CIA has known about this for decades.
Do you understand my point about how you can cite almost any ancient religious text and it would have passages that advocate for various sorts of atrocities? I concede there are degrees of difference between different religions, but it strikes me as absurd for you to think that the average citizen of Iraq or Afghanistan is more motivated by a pure allegiance to the literal word of a 1000+ year old religious text than they are having their families murdered by US bombs.
You quoted Old Testament and how many Christians or Jews actually adhere to those passages. Muslims adhere to theirs found in the Quran. You failed again. All you post are opinions not facts. Fact is that Muslims follow their leader and his teachings. You can keep posting your bullshit until your fingers wear out, or the admins bounce your troll ass. You'll never convince the people here that your bullshit is fact. Go play somewhere else where the ignorant will bow down and kiss your dumb ass.
The video Walks posted states that U&K demographers predict England will have a Muslim majority by 2050. London already has a Muslim mayor and Islam is the contagious disease again sweeping across the main continent.
We have a Muslim President. A lying POS determined to sabotage personal freedom and privacy by any means necessary. Look what Islamic leadership has done for us---just look. Obama has failed us so badly that this no longer can be considered mere incompetence but acts of deliberate treason. How many Gitmo prisoners were released and have returned to kill again for Allah? How can ANY Democrat respect a man so determined to release our potential killers so they can strike again?
Quote from: tac on June 21, 2016, 03:53:52 AM
You quoted Old Testament and how many Christians or Jews actually adhere to those passages. Muslims adhere to theirs found in the Quran. You failed again. All you post are opinions not facts. Fact is that Muslims follow their leader and his teachings. You can keep posting your bullshit until your fingers wear out, or the admins bounce your troll ass. You'll never convince the people here that your bullshit is fact. Go play somewhere else where the ignorant will bow down and kiss your dumb ass.
Tac, you are being
much too kind to Rodent's Feet here. Knock it off! :wink:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crrkggfdgwgfqktbxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fbwrgrdqwfxrsrfbgrqqxwsfqgwdkg%2F1%2F1595431%2F13885637%2Ftslipperscomingsoon500x400x100-vi.png&hash=b30b9a1cc435323c70fa006d86980d7d602c9273)
Quote from: quiller on June 21, 2016, 03:56:58 AM
Tac, you are being much too kind to Rodent's Feet here. Knock it off! :wink:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crrkggfdgwgfqktbxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fbwrgrdqwfxrsrfbgrqqxwsfqgwdkg%2F1%2F1595431%2F13885637%2Ftslipperscomingsoon500x400x100-vi.png&hash=b30b9a1cc435323c70fa006d86980d7d602c9273)
I despise these 'blame America' bastards. The rodent feet are fitting! :lol:
Quote from: tac on June 21, 2016, 04:27:58 AM
I despise these 'blame America' bastards. The rodent feet are fitting! :lol:
I rarely cross-post my own stuff, but now that you mention it, similarities do exist. By the time the train catches up to him....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crrbqbdbwdqtkswfxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fskgrdsrtwxttwkwktsbxsqtttqtqd%2F1%2F1595431%2F13878199%2Fsnivel05train-vi.png&hash=5396a1ac6b3b8d2c6f81f759cfb29f12f6be63ac)
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 20, 2016, 07:13:01 PM
Okay, so if you or I had our family killed by a drone, or our democratically elected government overthrown by a foreign power and a repressive tyrant was installed in his place, we'd both probably want revenge against the foreign power who did this to us, right?
Apples and bricks. We aren't living in a society of dictators in constant conflict for power, we don't have a history based on a religious tenet/political system of revenge suicide.
So you're telling me if this were to occur her, that you would kill as many innocent people as possible for revenge?
My, this explains a lot....
QuoteThis is explicitly what almost all Muslim terrorists have said over the past twenty years. But you are convinced that they are all telling lies about what is motivating them?
And for you to myopically focus on it as the main issue is beyond ignorance.
Look at the last shooter, look at his victims, read his reasons and tell me it wasn't his so called religion that drove him to insanityy.
QuoteEven if you don't accept that revenge for US foreign policy is the ONLY motivation, surely you could accept that it is a large factor that is motivating their hatred for the United States and their desire to launch attacks against us. People are people, regardless of the religion they belong to or the part of the world they happen to have been born in. All you have to do is put yourself in the position of a regular person living in Iraq or Afghanistan who suffered from US foreign policy to understand how they would react.
Tell me specifically the reason why all these terrorists would be lying about their motivations for launching attacks against us? If their end goal is a worldwide caliphate and the triumph of radical Islam over the entire globe, it would be in their interest to "spread the gospel" as it were and denounce the infidels for their transgressions against Islamic teachings. Why would they want to distract from this message by complaining of US foreign policy?
This is known as historical perspective, something you Millennial lack severely.
These people know no other way of life than kill or be killed, they are raised under harsh rule, their entire lives exist under the dictatorial rule of the strong man, they understand submit or die, Stockholm syndrome is a strong part of their very existence.
Many say they are doing it for revenge, and in doing so, their family is well paid by those in power, so if anything, their motivation is two fold, they see no future in their own lives, but have a chance of making a better life for their own family.
QuoteAgain, I'll remind you that Robert Pape's research has concluded that suicide terrorism is motivated primarily by military occupation of a nation. Once that occupation is abandoned, troops are removed, bases are closed and intervention into the foreign nation is ended, the suicide terrorism against the occupying force ends.
This is the conclusion that Pape and his team reached after examining more than 4000 incidents of suicide terrorism throughout the world since 1980. Have you yet watched the video of Pape that I linked to or read the article I posted?
Really? Then explain ISIS and their purging every village of Christians or anyone that doesn't submit.
Quote from: tac on June 21, 2016, 03:53:52 AM
You quoted Old Testament and how many Christians or Jews actually adhere to those passages. Muslims adhere to theirs found in the Quran. You failed again. All you post are opinions not facts. Fact is that Muslims follow their leader and his teachings. You can keep posting your bullshit until your fingers wear out, or the admins bounce your troll ass. You'll never convince the people here that your bullshit is fact. Go play somewhere else where the ignorant will bow down and kiss your dumb ass.
His ignorance is what gets people killed, his insistence on ignoring history and moving forward with the idea that their motivation is disproportionately based on revenge for our military actions, and wanting to retract our military from the M/E is doing exactly what those in power want, leaving us vulnerable in ways not yet realized.
If this is the mindset of Millwennials the nation is in for a very rude awakening, just as Thomas Jefferson discovered centuries ago.
Quote from: Solar on June 21, 2016, 06:40:50 AM
His ignorance is what gets people killed, his insistence on ignoring history and moving forward with the idea that their motivation is disproportionately based on revenge for our military actions, and wanting to retract our military from the M/E is doing exactly what those in power want, leaving us vulnerable in ways not yet realized.
If this is the mindset of Millwennials the nation is in for a very rude awakening, just as Thomas Jefferson discovered centuries ago.
It is clear jrodefeld is a blame America first card carrying lib troll. At some point he should be dispatched.
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 21, 2016, 06:46:27 AM
It is clear jrodefeld is a blame America first card carrying lib troll. At some point he should be dispatched.
I think another lap around the barn tied behind the horse is in order, he hasn't eaten enough excrement yet.
At some point he's going to have to admit his theory is not only flawed, but a death sentence for the country.
Even if, "IF" we pulled all of our military out of the M/E tomorrow, not one damn thing would change, these animals would still seek victims, still want to conquer, and still attack us simply because their prophet directs them to kill all infidels.
Yes, Western culture is the enemy, and this Bozo is too damn thick to understand history.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 20, 2016, 07:18:19 PM
>>>
Were close to the same age probably (I'm 31), and this is a generational problem as much as anything. Younger conservatives (I'm assuming you identify as conservative?) tend to have much more libertarian views on foreign policy than do older conservatives who were raised on Cold War propaganda.
Yes, conservative but more libertarian than many here. I do not like such labels though, as they seem to have lost much of their meaning. For example, there is no doubt that climate change is REAL and the biggest component of that is due to human activities. The only question now, really, is how earth's systems will deal with it and how we address the problem (free market or strict government regulation? The former the better way I think). We do not know where the tipping points are. Does that make me
not a conservative? Of course not. In fact, I would argue, just the opposite is the case. But many conservatives attack me for this. But (thinking of Reagan's 80% comment) that is silly. If one want 100% consensus, move to North Korea.
God bless.
Quote from: CitizenWriter on June 21, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Yes, conservative but more libertarian than many here. I do not like such labels though, as they seem to have lost much of their meaning. For example, there is no doubt that climate change is REAL and the biggest component of that is due to human activities. (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft270%2FEV1L1%2F114_bsflag.gif&hash=5a059a2d445aacde252953f628267aab09f2d8f3) (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdontstepinthepoop.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F09%2FBullShit.jpg&hash=6e342f6c04042bf65fd199b29bf3e68d4987d72f) The only question now, really, is how earth's systems will deal with it and how we address the problem (free market or strict government regulation? The former the better way I think). We do not know where the tipping points are. Does that make me not a conservative? Of course not. In fact, I would argue, just the opposite is the case, But many conservatives attack me for this. But (thinking of Regan's 80% comment) that is silly. If one want 100% consensus, move to North Korea.
God bless.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M12666aeaa3f0ac28af9dec30335c3605H0%26amp%3Bpid%3D15.1&hash=abdde63eeb1308b13f4957e0856befbd80c6617c)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ZinOoYekOBs%2FTcYPjBH1KfI%2FAAAAAAAADcw%2FUd0kM47HLPI%2Fs1600%2FJLM-NatGeo-Mount-St-Helens-1980-May-18.jpg&hash=a10fc38320aaaf2998b9ec9a56c7e8f75b9f89a9)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M22ed64f17491f5b0acd87c14c3aaa1ebo0%26amp%3Bpid%3D15.1&hash=ff58f6a31ea3f1606b86e0f52c6bfa52d640fd5e)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3F%26amp%3Bid%3DOIP.M108c7bd986bf9904aed5e3a3de01249eH0%26amp%3Bw%3D300%26amp%3Bh%3D200%26amp%3Bc%3D0%26amp%3Bpid%3D1.9%26amp%3Brs%3D0%26amp%3Bp%3D0%26amp%3Br%3D0&hash=4b9df29db28ac8436969fa4b5129b533a5a15770)
Quote from: CitizenWriter on June 21, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Yes, conservative but more libertarian than many here. I do not like such labels though, as they seem to have lost much of their meaning. For example, there is no doubt that climate change is REAL and the biggest component of that is due to human activities. The only question now, really, is how earth's systems will deal with it and how we address the problem (free market or strict government regulation? The former the better way I think). We do not know where the tipping points are. Does that make me not a conservative? Of course not. In fact, I would argue, just the opposite is the case. But many conservatives attack me for this. But (thinking of Reagan's 80% comment) that is silly. If one want 100% consensus, move to North Korea.
God bless.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nah, just ignorant and uninformed.
Quote from: Solar on June 21, 2016, 08:43:08 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nah, just ignorant and uninformed.
They think and
feel ......
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ec0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F50%2F42%2Fd2%2F5042d27025e923b1c69e0339a7094c72.jpg&hash=cd5981eb4aa3827ea725f57fbfd0ac09441cd540)
Quote from: walkstall on June 21, 2016, 08:42:20 AM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M12666aeaa3f0ac28af9dec30335c3605H0%26amp%3Bpid%3D15.1&hash=abdde63eeb1308b13f4957e0856befbd80c6617c)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ZinOoYekOBs%2FTcYPjBH1KfI%2FAAAAAAAADcw%2FUd0kM47HLPI%2Fs1600%2FJLM-NatGeo-Mount-St-Helens-1980-May-18.jpg&hash=a10fc38320aaaf2998b9ec9a56c7e8f75b9f89a9)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M22ed64f17491f5b0acd87c14c3aaa1ebo0%26amp%3Bpid%3D15.1&hash=ff58f6a31ea3f1606b86e0f52c6bfa52d640fd5e)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3F%26amp%3Bid%3DOIP.M108c7bd986bf9904aed5e3a3de01249eH0%26amp%3Bw%3D300%26amp%3Bh%3D200%26amp%3Bc%3D0%26amp%3Bpid%3D1.9%26amp%3Brs%3D0%26amp%3Bp%3D0%26amp%3Br%3D0&hash=4b9df29db28ac8436969fa4b5129b533a5a15770)
This is a good example of what I am talking about.
Do volcanoes inject a lot of C0
2 into the atmosphere? Yes. Is it a significant contributor to climate change?
No. There have been many scientific studies that have conclusively shown that to be the case. The number I remember (I could be off but not by much) is that this component is about 1% of the total (averaged out). And I see you included an image of the sun; solar variability has been conclusively ruled out as having anything to do with climate change, has been for several years now.
Attack the science all you want. But if you want to be taken seriously, you need to know what you are talking about.
I did not come to this forum to discuss climate change. But thank you for proving my point.
God bless.
Quote from: CitizenWriter on June 21, 2016, 08:56:13 AM
This is a good example of what I am talking about.
Do volcanoes inject a lot of C02 into the atmosphere? Yes. Is it a significant contributor to climate change? No. There have been many scientific studies that have conclusively shown that to be the case. The number I remember (I could be off but not by much) is that this component is about 1% of the total (averaged out). And I see you included an image of the sun; solar variability has been conclusively ruled out as having anything to do with climate change, has been for several years now.
Attack the science all you want. But if you want to be taken seriously, you need to know what you are talking about.
I did not come to this forum to discuss climate change. But thank you for proving my point.
God bless.
Remember the government pays science and they will not cut off the cash cow.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/library/global-cooling-20421/
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/library/what-you-don't-know-about-climate-change/
Quote from: CitizenWriter on June 21, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Yes, conservative but more libertarian than many here. I do not like such labels though, as they seem to have lost much of their meaning. For example, there is no doubt that climate change is REAL and the biggest component of that is due to human activities. The only question now, really, is how earth's systems will deal with it and how we address the problem (free market or strict government regulation? The former the better way I think). We do not know where the tipping points are. Does that make me not a conservative? Of course not. In fact, I would argue, just the opposite is the case. But many conservatives attack me for this. But (thinking of Reagan's 80% comment) that is silly. If one want 100% consensus, move to North Korea.
God bless.
LMAOff!!!
Brother, you are lost as last year's easter egg. Man made climate change is based on junk science, manipulated and just flat ALTERED statistical analysis by a bunch of bike riding activist with more fear than brains. The data for temperature jumps used to support this insanity can be traced back to the very day that they started playing with the standards for how and where collection stations must be built and when the data for analysis is collected.
IS climate change a fact? HELL yes. Is it our fault? You're kidding, right? Our climate made more drastic changes in the 10 thousand years before we discovered fire than it has in the 20 thousand since the last ice age. But...I suppose a bunch of neanderthals burning sticks and twigs could have caused the last great ice age or that portion of Europe that had the industry to burn coal could have caused the "Year without a summer" in 1816. NOT! ;~)
Oh...and that WAS caused by a volcano by the way.
My suggestion...hide and watch. Cause you DANG sure ain't gonna stop the planet!
Quote from: jdzbrain on June 21, 2016, 09:23:21 AM
LMAOff!!!
Brother, you are lost as last year's easter egg. Man made climate change is based on junk science, manipulated and just flat ALTERED statistical analysis by a bunch of bike riding activist with more fear than brains. The data for temperature jumps used to support this insanity can be traced back to the very day that they started playing with the standards for how and where collection stations must be built and when the data for analysis is collected.
IS climate change a fact? HELL yes. Is it our fault? You're kidding, right? Our climate made more drastic changes in the 10 thousand years before we discovered fire than it has in the 20 thousand since the last ice age. But...I suppose a bunch of neanderthals burning sticks and twigs could have caused the last great ice age or that portion of Europe that had the industry to burn coal could have caused the "Year without a summer" in 1816. NOT! ;~)
Oh...and that WAS caused by a volcano by the way.
My suggestion...hide and watch. Cause you DANG sure ain't gonna stop the planet!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That's a perfect description!
Quote from: Solar on June 21, 2016, 06:54:25 AM
I think another lap around the barn tied behind the horse is in order, he hasn't eaten enough excrement yet.
Game on!!!!!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crswqbwtgrfbbswtxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fwdfwfbgdgxsqfwttqgw%2F1%2F1595431%2F11064197%2Fcpf_varsity_trolldunk-vi.png&hash=f47290e5960c366315c0158e8d5004a30cf068af)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup:
I'm going to try another line of argument that you maybe would be able to relate to. I understand that you have strong opinions about the religion of Islam and I know I won't change your opinion on that. However, my arguments do not rely on taking a sympathetic view of Islam. I want to examine the morality of our foreign policy on its merits, irrespective of the human rights abuses radical Islamic regimes are responsible for.
As a libertarian, I subscribe to something called the Non-aggression Principle. This is the belief that all humans are self-owners and it is wrong to initiate aggression against others. Notice that I said initiate. I am not a pacifist and I believe that all people have the natural right of self defense. If someone initiates aggression against you, you have the right to defend your life and property through the proportional use of defensive force. Similarly, the law and courts can exact proportional penalties against individuals who have been found guilty of having violated the rights of others. This also is not initiatory force, but compensatory sanction i.e. "justice" rendered against a rights-violator.
I already made it clear that it is just and reasonable for any nation who suffers a terrorist attack to bring to justice those who were responsible for the attack. The key is that the response has to be proportional with every effort made to target ONLY those directly responsible.
Our foreign policy in the middle east over decades is not a proportional response to a terrorist attack. It is unjustified aggression when judged on it's own.
Do you believe that children are innocent? Does the accident of birth, whereby some children are born to Muslim parents in a middle eastern nation mean that their lives are forfeit?
More than 500,000 women and children died due to the United States enforced sanctions against Iraq during the 1990s. Can you honestly argue that this policy, judged on its own, is justifiable? Madeline Albright said on 60 minutes that the price was "worth it".
In 1953, Iranians elected a moderate leaders in a democratic election. His name was Mohammed Mossadegh. The CIA staged a coup, overthrowing his administration and replacing him with the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators the region had seen. The Iranian people lived under an oppressive regime for several decades because of US interference into their right of self-determination.
Is this justified?
Our military has performed water-boarding against multiple terrorist suspects, some hundreds of times. Every expert agrees that water-boarding IS torture. It is not "simulated drowning". It IS drowning. They flood a suspects throat and lungs with water until the person enters what they refer to as the "death spiral", which means they are literally dying. They are walking through the tunnel of light and the life is leaving their bodies. Then medical staff resuscitates the suspect, makes them cough out the water and then they do it again. This is medieval, barbaric stuff.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/waterboarding-torture-article-1.227670
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/11/01/waterboarding-torture-i-did-it-myself-says-us-advisor
Hundreds of terrorist suspects have been kept illegally at Guantanamo for years, never charged with any crime. Many of them have proven to be innocent but they are not released because they might want to attack the United States! No shit. But I guess it's just their radical religion that makes them want to attack the United States, not being illegally captured, tortured and held in a military prison for a decade without charges.
As I mentioned before, our drone program has overwhelmingly been killing innocent people NOT terrorists. This is not a proportional response to the threat of terrorism.
Our military has been interfering in the internal affairs of Muslim countries for decades and the act of doing so is immoral when judged on it's merits. Iraq, and the millions who lived there, had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack against the United States, so how can it be justified that our military deposed their government and destroyed their country?
And, considering you are so concerned about radical Islam, isn't it interesting to note that most of the countries that the United States has intervened against have been secular rather than fundamentalist? There was a not insignificant number of Christians who lived in Iraq prior to our invasion. Now they have all fled, and the fundamentalist ISIS have taken over.
This intervention, these unprovoked and non-proportional attacks against Muslim nations by our military are acts of initiatory aggression are wrong, period.
ISIS and Al Qaeda killers are barbaric and horrible, no question about it. But our military aggression has been barbaric and savage as well. If you start with clearly defined principles and a clear, consistent moral standard by which action is to be judged, then it becomes much easier to see the world with clear eyes.
Yes, I think we should stop intervening in the Middle East because it provokes blowback, hatred of the United States, and makes us more susceptible to terrorist attacks. But I ALSO oppose the intervention because it is immoral when judged on its own.
Terrorism is just a tactic used by a desperate people who don't have any other means available to them to fight against a much more powerful adversary. We should treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue, not something for our military to be concerned with. If we do have a large scale terrorist attack like 9/11, we can defend ourselves and get justice against the perpetrators. But a single large terrorist attack does not justify a disproportional invasion of a sovereign nation and the murder of innocent people.
Take a big piece of paper and write on one side the number of Americans that have been killed by terrorist attacks and on the other write how many Muslims have been killed by our military over the past thirty years.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 21, 2016, 07:57:18 PM
I'm going to try another line of argument that you maybe would be able to relate to.
Nope. It does convince me you're an arab-loving apologist. Yawn. That makes you a liberal.
Quote from: quiller on June 21, 2016, 08:07:58 PM
Nope. It does convince me you're an arab-loving apologist. Yawn. That makes you a liberal.
"Arab-loving apologist"? What is that supposed to mean? You might not agree with my opinions but there has been some thought put into them and some research done to bolster my views. You've been reduced to name-calling at this point.
I'm a libertarian, which means I support a radical reduction in the size and scope of the State over private human affairs or, preferably, the elimination of the State.
I thought conservatives of your ilk believed in small government and the Constitution? I guess this doesn't apply to foreign policy then?
The reason is we are not Muslim. The motivation is we are weak.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 21, 2016, 07:57:18 PM
ISIS and Al Qaeda killers are barbaric and horrible, no question about it. But our military aggression has been barbaric and savage as well. If you start with clearly defined principles and a clear, consistent moral standard by which action is to be judged, then it becomes much easier to see the world with clear eyes.
It's hard to see the world with clear eyes because the world is so messy.
Factions have been retaliating for retaliations for past attacks for thousands of years.
Nearly every nation on Earth lives on land that it took from some other nation.
The global ruling clique is behind the "war on terror."
9-11 could have been prevented.
Young officers in the Able Danger office in the Pentagon warned about Osama bin Laden.
Their superiors stifled the warning.
The ruling clique
wanted a "Pearl Harbor type event"
to spark a war.
One could argue that the "war on terror" is motivated by
LEFT wing ideology, not conservatism.
It's more accurate to say that the global ruling clique
infiltrates and corrupts EVERY institution they can.
They use left vs. right conflict to manipulate events to produce results
that NEITHER side wants, but the global ruling clique does.
The ruling clique doesn't want EITHER side to win.
They keep the conflict going because they want BOTH sides to lose!
For a vivid illustration of the principle, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Dove
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 21, 2016, 08:24:30 PM
"Arab-loving apologist"? What is that supposed to mean? You might not agree with my opinions but there has been some thought put into them and some research done to bolster my views. You've been reduced to name-calling at this point.
I'm a libertarian, which means I support a radical reduction in the size and scope of the State over private human affairs or, preferably, the elimination of the State.
I thought conservatives of your ilk believed in small government and the Constitution? I guess this doesn't apply to foreign policy then?
I see no reason to waste time answering point by point the things SENTIENT adults already know. Pull your liberal head out of your Barack Obama.
The one trick pony returns with more BS! :rolleyes:
Quote from: tac on June 22, 2016, 05:08:59 AM
The one trick pony returns with more BS! :rolleyes:
There is no reason to excuse atrocities committed by animals in the name of an ultra-violent, ultra-ignorant death-cult like the false religion of Pisslam.
Sentient adults do not mutilate the genitals of female children, to deny them sexual pleasure later, while at the same time take sex slaves in combat and behead anyone daring to say they are wrong. They are not a religion, they are a disease. We have the cure, or had, until Barack Hussein O-pologize became the first Muslim president and America went straight into the toilet.
Quote from: CitizenWriter on June 21, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Yes, conservative but more libertarian than many here. I do not like such labels though, as they seem to have lost much of their meaning. For example, there is no doubt that climate change is REAL and the biggest component of that is due to human activities. The only question now, really, is how earth's systems will deal with it and how we address the problem (free market or strict government regulation? The former the better way I think). We do not know where the tipping points are. Does that make me not a conservative? Of course not. In fact, I would argue, just the opposite is the case. But many conservatives attack me for this. But (thinking of Reagan's 80% comment) that is silly. If one want 100% consensus, move to North Korea.
God bless.
God hates idiots. You are an idiot so God hates you CitizenNutbag. Everything you state is the opposite because you are an absolute and utter ignoramus on physical geographical science. Your facts are wrong, your conclusions are wrong and your claim of being a "conservative" is utterly laughable. More likely you are one of the garden variety far leftist liars who claim to be conservatives in order to infiltrate (or so you believe) conservative websites to spread mendacious propaganda.
The natural contributions of CO
2 are about ten times the human contribution on average and in years when there are large volcanos closer to thirty to fifty times higher.
Maybe you should do a little research before you go spouting off with second-hand opinions from others without having the slightest clue about scientific information yourself, fool. You are clearly only an expert in one field - opinionology - which is the application of one highly-biased, fact-devoid opinion to validate another.
Just to prove you are a complete ignoramus what is the average metric tonnage of CO2 contributed by natural sources every year and what is the average contributed by human activity? And once you have answered that (and you NEED to know that answer if you are ever to grasp the science behind climatology) what the average amount of sunlight that irradiates the terrestrial atmosphere every 24 hours? I'll give you the last one - it's 30 nonillion watts of energy. That is more energy that the human race could generate in 10 million years IN ONE DAY. Another clown-without-make-up spouts nonsense and then insults everyone else for calling him on it. Typical ecoparanoid.
Likely you are also an atheist pretending to believe in God, perhaps even to yourself.
(cuckoo clock sounds)
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 21, 2016, 07:57:18 PM
In 1953, Iranians elected a moderate leaders in a democratic election. His name was Mohammed Mossadegh. The CIA staged a coup, overthrowing his administration and replacing him with the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators the region had seen. The Iranian people lived under an oppressive regime for several decades because of US interference into their right of self-determination.
ISIS and Al Qaeda killers are barbaric and horrible, no question about it. But our military aggression has been barbaric and savage as well. If you start with clearly defined principles and a clear, consistent moral standard by which action is to be judged, then it becomes much easier to see the world with clear eyes.
Back for more eh?....you have been refuted at every turn, you refuse address facts pointed out to you contrary to pencil necked soft gutted fool Pape's assertions...now you come up with this nonsense?
MOSSADEGH was maneuvered into position by the KGB, using the same fishy 'voting' process that Obamao's Progressives use today. This was an ill disguised power grab on the part of the USSR, who under STALIN, The Sweetheart of Georgia, gobbled up about a third of IRAN as part of an agreement arising out of the allied powers during WW2. The intended goal of this move on Stalin's part was the eventual control of IRANS OIL and CONTROL OF THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ Hence the entire Persian Gulf. That and scaring the shit out the imbecilic taffy yanking Turks to the point they joined NATO less the Russian bear have them for a snack....
So putting the SHAH into power was a smart move on the part of GREAT BRITAIN and the UNITED STATES...thwarting the soviets interference in that country until the time of the Shah when their KGB henchmen formed the Iranian TUEDAH (Communist Party) to overthrow him.
Self determination my Shanty Irish ass. It was either the USA and the principals of Freedom education and prosperity to bring the unenlighted populace on par with the first world through commerce or Puppetry by the KGB who would have further empowered the lunatic Clerics in Iran like the Ayattolah Kohmeni who was a
nastier version of modern day ISIS killers. Yes the Shah was a brutal oppressor BUT his aggression was aimed at the revolutionaries, the TUEDAH PARTY and the CLERICS who took advantage of a largely uneducated and unsophisticated populace to keep them in thrall to their brutal backward 14th century religion.....SOUND FAMILIAR?
The Shah financed tens of thousands of Iranian people MANY WOMEN AMONG THEM coming to the USA and elsewhere studying things like Medicine, architecture etc etc, a few were trained by the US Military (They later got axed by Khomeni's goon squad).
Looking at those facts and his desire to move Iran into the 20th century with equality for Women, education and employment for his populace, I'd hardly call him a fiendish dictator in comparison to the religious nut bags who inherited the country.
This also illustrates why I previously claimed in my post that the USSR and the modern day KGB headed Russian STate is more responsible for the rise of Islamic terrorism through their interference and puppetry than anything the USA or GB came close to. LOOK AT THE eXAMPLE TODAY OF PUTIN WITH SYRIA and tell me History doesn't repeat itself with the example I just gave you of Iran not to mention Afghanistan...see a pattern yet?
Read, DO some research by somebody other than your Hero Pape, learn from History.
Last issue yes the US Has used it's share of savagery during times of war, nothing compared to what ISIS is doing or the Axis powers during WW2....however, the nature of warfare is just that .....Savagery,
In warfare it is the most Furious mind that wins....Thats a quote out of Sun Tzu....you might check with your buddy Pape to see if he knows who that is.
Quote from: quiller on June 22, 2016, 05:14:47 AM
There is no reason to excuse atrocities committed by animals in the name of an ultra-violent, ultra-ignorant death-cult like the false religion of Pisslam.
Sentient adults do not mutilate the genitals of female children, to deny them sexual pleasure later, while at the same time take sex slaves in combat and behead anyone daring to say they are wrong. They are not a religion, they are a disease. We have the cure, or had, until Barack Hussein O-pologize became the first Muslim president and America went straight into the toilet.
I never excused atrocities committed by Muslim extremists. We cannot change them through the projection of military force. Reforms of their societies must come from within, organically. Do you think it is a proper role for the United States military to solve all of the world's problems through nation building, "humanitarian" wars, and intervention into the internal affairs of other nations?
In other words, do the internal problems within the Muslim world require the US military to intervene to solve those problems?
I've already stated that when a terrorist launches attacks, killing US civilians on our homeland, we have every right and obligation to bring to justice those directly responsible for those actions. But we don't have the right to respond disproportionately. History has proven that our military interventions into the middle east have caused unintended consequences and blowback, so we should be very wary of projecting military strength into the Middle East beyond the minimum that is required for defensive purposes.
I cannot control what terrorists in the middle east do, or what the governments of repressive theocracies do. However, we can take responsibility for what our government does in our names. Committing aggression and murdering innocent people is wrong and we should stop our government from committing war crimes against Muslim nations. Retorting that "yeah, well look at what ISIS has done" is not a justification. It is not reasonable to sanction the murder of innocents because ISIS kills innocents as well. Our standards ought to be higher.
By the way, are you lot serious when you speak of Obama as being a Muslim or are you trying to be funny? Obama is obviously NOT a Muslim. I don't like Obama's policies, I never voted for him and I consider his administration to be a disaster on many levels. But I try to stick to the facts. Last I checked, most Muslim theocrats are not outspoken advocates for gay marriage.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 22, 2016, 07:10:45 PM
Back for more eh?....you have been refuted at every turn, you refuse address facts pointed out to you contrary to pencil necked soft gutted fool Pape's assertions...now you come up with this nonsense?
MOSSADEGH was maneuvered into position by the KGB, using the same fishy 'voting' process that Obamao's Progressives use today. This was an ill disguised power grab on the part of the USSR, who under STALIN, The Sweetheart of Georgia, gobbled up about a third of IRAN as part of an agreement arising out of the allied powers during WW2. The intended goal of this move on Stalin's part was the eventual control of IRANS OIL and CONTROL OF THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ Hence the entire Persian Gulf. That and scaring the shit out the imbecilic taffy yanking Turks to the point they joined NATO less the Russian bear have them for a snack....
So putting the SHAH into power was a smart move on the part of GREAT BRITAIN and the UNITED STATES...thwarting the soviets interference in that country until the time of the Shah when their KGB henchmen formed the Iranian TUEDAH (Communist Party) to overthrow him.
Self determination my Shanty Irish ass. It was either the USA and the principals of Freedom education and prosperity to bring the unenlighted populace on par with the first world through commerce or Puppetry by the KGB who would have further empowered the lunatic Clerics in Iran like the Ayattolah Kohmeni who was a nastier version of modern day ISIS killers. Yes the Shah was a brutal oppressor BUT his aggression was aimed at the revolutionaries, the TUEDAH PARTY and the CLERICS who took advantage of a largely uneducated and unsophisticated populace to keep them in thrall to their brutal backward 14th century religion.....SOUND FAMILIAR?
The Shah financed tens of thousands of Iranian people MANY WOMEN AMONG THEM coming to the USA and elsewhere studying things like Medicine, architecture etc etc, a few were trained by the US Military (They later got axed by Khomeni's goon squad).
Looking at those facts and his desire to move Iran into the 20th century with equality for Women, education and employment for his populace, I'd hardly call him a fiendish dictator in comparison to the religious nut bags who inherited the country.
This also illustrates why I previously claimed in my post that the USSR and the modern day KGB headed Russian STate is more responsible for the rise of Islamic terrorism through their interference and puppetry than anything the USA or GB came close to. LOOK AT THE eXAMPLE TODAY OF PUTIN WITH SYRIA and tell me History doesn't repeat itself with the example I just gave you of Iran not to mention Afghanistan...see a pattern yet?
Read, DO some research by somebody other than your Hero Pape, learn from History.
Last issue yes the US Has used it's share of savagery during times of war, nothing compared to what ISIS is doing or the Axis powers during WW2....however, the nature of warfare is just that .....Savagery, In warfare it is the most Furious mind that wins....Thats a quote out of Sun Tzu....you might check with your buddy Pape to see if he knows who that is.
Let me quote an article that might refresh your memory on both the history of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, what the United States government's REAL problem with him was, and what our founders advocated as a foreign policy:
QuoteAfter two four-year terms as president of the United States, George Washington delivered some exceptionally sound advice in his farewell address in 1796, advice that's been basically ignored.
After expressing hope "that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained," Washington, commander in chief of the Continental Army, referred to "overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."
In foreign relations, Washington advocated a posture of strict neutrality: "The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
Not only was a strategy of impartiality, of "good faith and justice toward all nations," the most effectual stance for the nation, it was also the ethical thing to do, Washington maintained: "Religion and morality enjoin this conduct."
In relations with trading partners, the "great rule of conduct" for the United States should be "to have with them as little political connection as possible," Washington advised. "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
On Aug. 25, 1796, several weeks before his farewell address, Washington succinctly stated his nonintervention policy in a letter to James Monroe: "I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves."
That concept of America staying out of the internal business of other countries is long gone. From Guatemala, Iran, and Cuba to Chile, Vietnam, and Iraq, "preemptive war" and "regime change" are painted as humanitarian intrusions.
On March 19, 2000, for instance, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acknowledged America's past intervention in the internal concerns of Iran: "In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh."
Believing that Iranian oil belonged to Iranians, Mossadegh became a U.S. target after he backed a policy of nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a British firm that controlled the production and sale of Iranian oil since the early years of the 1900s.
Not unlike George Washington, Mossadegh saw his country getting the short end of the stick in its economic relationship with the British.
The New York Times ran an editorial approving of the coup against Mossadegh, in which it said, "Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism."
Berserk and fanatical nationalism by developed countries was different, i.e., acceptable. We didn't invade Iraq; we "liberated" it.
Following the ousting of Mossadegh, the United States during the next quarter century backed the shah's regime, a dictatorial government that, in Albright's words, "brutally repressed political dissent."
The coup against Mossadegh was "clearly a setback for Iran's political development," said Albright, "and it is easy to see now why so many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
"The 1953 CIA coup in Iran was named 'Operation Ajax' and was engineered by a CIA agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt," writes Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
For a time, as Hornberger explains, it looked to U.S. planners like the coup was an unqualified triumph: "U.S. officials, not surprisingly, considered the operation one of their greatest foreign policy successes – until, that is, the enormous convulsion that rocked Iranian society with the violent ouster of the shah and the installation of a virulently anti-American Islamic regime in 1979."
The coup, in essence, paved the way for the rise to power of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and all the rest that's happened right up to 9/11 and beyond.
It's called "blowback," the unintended consequences of covert operations – or as Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman, defines it, "the CIA's term for what happens when a foreign operation explodes in one's own face."
It's something that George Washington seemed to understand.
The First George W. on Blowback by Ralph R. Reiland
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11371
And an article by Jacob Hornberger for the Future of Freedom Foundation:
QuoteWhen Iranians took U.S. officials hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Americans were mystified and angry, not being able to comprehend how Iranians could be so hateful toward U.S. officials, especially since the U.S. government had been so supportive of the shah of Iran for some 25 years. What the American people failed to realize is that the deep anger and hatred that the Iranian people had in 1979 against the U.S. government was rooted in a horrible, anti-democratic act that the U.S. government committed in 1953. That was the year the CIA secretly and surreptitiously ousted the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, a man named Mohammad Mossadegh, from power, followed by the U.S. government's ardent support of the shah of Iran's dictatorship for the next 25 years.
Today, very few Americans have ever heard of Mohammad Mossadegh, but that wasn't the case in 1953. At that time, Mossadegh was one of the most famous figures in the world. Here's the way veteran New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer decribes him in his book All the Shah's Men:
In his time, Mohammad Mossadegh was a titanic figure. He shook an empire and changed the world. People everywhere knew his name. World leaders sought to influence him and later to depose him. No one was surprised when Time magazine chose him over Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill as its Man of the Year for 1951.
(Kinzer's book, published in 2003, is an excellent account of the CIA coup; much of this article is based on his book.)
There were two major problems with Mossadegh, however, as far as both the British and American governments were concerned. First, as an ardent nationalist he was a driving force behind an Iranian attempt to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a British company that had held a monopoly on the production and sale of Iranian oil since the early part of the 20th century. Second, fiercely independent, Mossadegh refused to do the bidding of the U.S. government, which by this time had become fearful that Mossadegh might align Iran with America's World War II ally and post–World War II enemy, the Soviet Union.
As Kinzer puts it,
Historic as Mossadegh's rise to power was for Iranians, it was at least as stunning for the British. They were used to manipulating Iranian prime ministers like chess pieces, and now, suddenly, they faced one who seemed to hate them.... [U.S. presidential envoy Averell] Harriman paid a call on the Shah before leaving Tehran, and during their meeting he made a discreet suggestion. Since Mossadegh was making it impossible to resolve the [Anglo-American Oil Company] crisis on a basis acceptable to the West, he said, Mossadegh might have to be removed. Harriman knew the Shah had no way of removing Mossadegh at that moment. By bringing up the subject, however, he foreshadowed American involvement in the coup two years later.
The 1953 CIA coup in Iran was named "Operation Ajax" and was engineered by a CIA agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. Capitalizing on the oil-nationalization showdown between Iran and Great Britain, which had thrown Iran into chaos and crisis, Kermit Roosevelt skillfully used a combination of bribery of Iranian military officials and CIA-engendered street protests to pull off the coup.
The first stage of the coup, however, was unsuccessful, and the shah, who had partnered with the CIA to oust Mossadegh from office, fled Tehran in fear of his life. However, in the second stage of the coup a few days later, the CIA achieved its goal, enabling the shah to return to Iran in triumph ... and with a subsequent 25-year, U.S.-supported dictatorship, which included one of the world's most terrifying and torturous secret police, the Savak.
For years, the U.S. government, including the CIA, kept what it had done in Iran secret from the American people and the world, although the Iranian people long suspected CIA involvement. U.S. officials, not surprisingly, considered the operation one of their greatest foreign-policy successes ... until, that is, the enormous convulsion that rocked Iranian society with the violent ouster of the shah and the installation of a virulently anti-American Islamic regime in 1979.
It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of anger and hatred that the Iranian people had for the U.S. government in 1979, not only because their world-famous democratically elected prime minister had been ousted by the CIA but also for having had to live for the following 25 years under a brutal and torturous dictatorship, a U.S.-government-supported dictatorship that also offended many Iranians with its policies of Westernization. In fact, the reason that the Iranian students took control of the U.S. embassy after the violent ouster of the shah in 1979 was their genuine fear that the U.S. government would repeat what it had done in 1953.
Imagine, for example, that it turned out that a foreign regime had secretly and surreptitiously ousted President Kennedy from office because of his refusal to do the bidding of that foreign regime. What would have been the response of the American people toward that government?
Indeed, imagine that the CIA had ousted Kennedy to protect our "national security," given what some in the CIA believed to be Kennedy's "soft-on-communism" mind-set, evidenced, for example, by his refusal to provide air support at the Bay of Pigs, which resulted in the CIA's failure to oust communist Fidel Castro from power in Cuba. What would have been the response of the American people to that?
At the time of the CIA coup, Iran was in fact in crisis and chaos. But democracy is oftentimes messy and unpredictable, and it no more guarantees freedom and economic stability than authoritarianism or totalitarianism does. (Think about the crisis and economic instability during America's Great Depression along with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies.) All democracy does is provide people with the means to bring about a peaceful transition of power. By violently injecting itself into Iran's democratic process through its removal of their democratically elected prime minister, the U.S. government guaranteed the omnipotent dictatorship of the (unelected) shah, a dictatorship that would continue for the next 25 years, with the full support of the U.S. government. It was a convulsive event whose consequences continue to shake America and the world today.
As historian James Bill stated (quoted in Kinzer's book),
[The coup] paved the way for the incubation of extremism, both of the left and of the right. This extremism became unalterably anti-American.... The fall of Mossadegh marked the end of a century of friendship between the two countries, and began a new era of U.S. intervention and growing hostility against the United States among the weakened forces of Iranian nationalism.
Kinzer writes,
The coup brought the United States and the West a reliable Iran for twenty-five years. That was an undoubted triumph. But in view of what came later, and of the culture of covert action that seized hold of the American body politic in the coup's wake, the triumph seems much tarnished. From the seething streets of Tehran and other Islamic capitals to the scenes of terror attacks around the world, Operation Ajax has left a haunting and terrible legacy.
Mohammad Mossadegh died in 1967 at the age of 82, having been under house arrest in his hometown of Ahmad Abad since the time of the 1953 CIA coup that ousted him from power. The shah of Iran, who would remain in power until the Iranian Revolution of 1979, would not permit any public funeral or other expression of mourning for Mossadegh.
In a speech delivered in March 2000 by Madeleine Albright (then secretary of state ), the U.S. government finally acknowledged what it had done to the Iranian people and to democracy in Iraq:
In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent. As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations.
Not surprisingly, Albright's "apology" fell on many deaf ears in Iran. While Iranians certainly have not forgotten the U.S. government's support of Saddam Hussein and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980s, including its furnishing Saddam with weapons of mass destruction to use against the Iranian people, the root of Iranian anger lies with the anti-democracy foreign policy of the U.S. government, by which U.S. officials ousted the Iranian people's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, from office in 1953.
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/antidemocracy-foreign-policy-iran/
What exact horror would you expect to emerge if the Soviet Union did indeed have some influence over Mossadegh? He was a widely loved, democratically elected Prime Minister. The history lesson to be taken from this event is that there are unintended consequences arising from our military interventions cannot be known ahead of time but invariably cause blowback and less safety for Americans, while bankrupting us.
Libertarians such as Murray Rothbard never worried about the Soviet Union as a threat to take over the world through war, because they understood that their economic system of socialist central planning was inherently doomed to collapse. If the Soviet's wanted to foolishly intervene into the middle east, it would only hasten their economic collapse. Sure enough, a few decades later the Soviets involved themselves militarily in Afghanistan and this greatly contributed to the eventual collapse of their country just a few years later.
But look at the unintended consequences of our military interventions. Our coup of Mossadegh created the hostage crisis. Our funding and support for the radical Mujahadeen when the Soviets were involved in Afghanistan during the 1980s came back to haunt us when they turned against us during the 1990s and 2000s when they became Al Qaeda and launched a handful of successful terrorist attacks against the United States.
This is not a sane foreign policy by any rational metric.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 21, 2016, 07:57:18 PM
I'm going to try another line of argument that you maybe would be able to relate to. I understand that you have strong opinions about the religion of Islam and I know I won't change your opinion on that. However, my arguments do not rely on taking a sympathetic view of Islam. I want to examine the morality of our foreign policy on its merits, irrespective of the human rights abuses radical Islamic regimes are responsible for.
As a libertarian, I subscribe to something called the Non-aggression Principle. This is the belief that all humans are self-owners and it is wrong to initiate aggression against others. Notice that I said initiate. I am not a pacifist and I believe that all people have the natural right of self defense. If someone initiates aggression against you, you have the right to defend your life and property through the proportional use of defensive force. Similarly, the law and courts can exact proportional penalties against individuals who have been found guilty of having violated the rights of others. This also is not initiatory force, but compensatory sanction i.e. "justice" rendered against a rights-violator.
I already made it clear that it is just and reasonable for any nation who suffers a terrorist attack to bring to justice those who were responsible for the attack. The key is that the response has to be proportional with every effort made to target ONLY those directly responsible.
Our foreign policy in the middle east over decades is not a proportional response to a terrorist attack. It is unjustified aggression when judged on it's own...TURN IT OFF, PLEASE.
Just to get it out of the way...i am a constitutional conservative, full stop. In the vein of George Mason. You know, the author of the bill of rights and the man cited by Thomas Jefferson as the architect and source of the Constitution? That said...in all that rambling, you got one thing right. Our policy in the middle east is mad. But not just there and NOT for any of the nonsensical, blog fueled historical drivel in that didactic diatribe.
Thomas Jefferson's first paying job with this country was to "negotiate" paying ransom for the release of hostages...people taken as slaves on the high seas by Muslims...for George Washington. He later wrote, "If I could with but a waive of the hand, wipe from the face of this earth every practitioner of Mohammedan, I would." This is NOT NEW!
MAYbe...Washington weren't that smart!
But the fact is, you're right. Our policy is madness. We have and continue to violate the Constitution over and over and over. Hell, Jefferson was the first guy to do it and demoRATs even passed an unconstitutional law so they could justify abdicating their constitutional mandate to the president and defer responsibility when it all goes sideways. It's referred to as the war powers act of 1972. The madness in our policy is that Congress should declare war if we need to make war...and DROP THE HAMMER OF GOD on these rag heads!!!
There is a reason that the most popular name for children in Palestine was Saddam...BEfore we pulled his ass out of that rat hole. And there is a reason that more than 10 thousand people in the middle east changed their name FROM Saddam to something else...usually George...AFter he was caught. These people only respect one thing. Power!
We should lay WASTE to ANYone that attacks us, then come home and prepare our hammer to be dropped on the next fool. A time or two of that and it won't be necessary again. Until we do, they'll just keep doing what they're doing. They don't give a DAMN about you proportional sensibilities. Not on whit!
And by the way...we have been "water boarding" our own guys as part of enhanced interrogation resistance training for YEARS. Where the do you think the term "enhanced interrogation" came from? I suppose you think George Bush or Dick Chaney made it up. Cripe...it amazes me how naive people can be.
Quote from: jdzbrain on June 22, 2016, 10:06:27 PM
We should lay WASTE to ANYone that attacks us, then come home and prepare our hammer to be dropped on the next fool. A time or two of that and it won't be necessary again. Until we do, they'll just keep doing what they're doing. They don't give a DAMN about you proportional sensibilities. Not on whit!
Proportion is when you nuke Medina to get Mecca's attention, but nuke both TOGETHER to get ISLAM'S attention.
Quote from: quiller on June 22, 2016, 10:44:31 PM
Proportion is when you nuke Medina to get Mecca's attention, but nuke both TOGETHER to get ISLAM'S attention.
Ex...actly!
Quote from: jdzbrain on June 22, 2016, 10:06:27 PM
Just to get it out of the way...i am a constitutional conservative, full stop. In the vein of George Mason. You know, the author of the bill of rights and the man cited by Thomas Jefferson as the architect and source of the Constitution? That said...in all that rambling, you got one thing right. Our policy in the middle east is mad. But not just there and NOT for any of the nonsensical, blog fueled historical drivel in that didactic diatribe.
Thomas Jefferson's first paying job with this country was to "negotiate" paying ransom for the release of hostages...people taken as slaves on the high seas by Muslims...for George Washington. He later wrote, "If I could with but a waive of the hand, wipe from the face of this earth every practitioner of Mohammedan, I would." This is NOT NEW!
MAYbe...Washington weren't that smart!
But the fact is, you're right. Our policy is madness. We have and continue to violate the Constitution over and over and over. Hell, Jefferson was the first guy to do it and demoRATs even passed an unconstitutional law so they could justify abdicating their constitutional mandate to the president and defer responsibility when it all goes sideways. It's referred to as the war powers act of 1972. The madness in our policy is that Congress should declare war if we need to make war...and DROP THE HAMMER OF GOD on these rag heads!!!
There is a reason that the most popular name for children in Palestine was Saddam...BEfore we pulled his ass out of that rat hole. And there is a reason that more than 10 thousand people in the middle east changed their name FROM Saddam to something else...usually George...AFter he was caught. These people only respect one thing. Power!
We should lay WASTE to ANYone that attacks us, then come home and prepare our hammer to be dropped on the next fool. A time or two of that and it won't be necessary again. Until we do, they'll just keep doing what they're doing. They don't give a DAMN about you proportional sensibilities. Not on whit!
And by the way...we have been "water boarding" our own guys as part of enhanced interrogation resistance training for YEARS. Where the do you think the term "enhanced interrogation" came from? I suppose you think George Bush or Dick Chaney made it up. Cripe...it amazes me how naive people can be.
Okay, there are a couple of things I want to say about what you've said. First, you describe yourself as a Constitutional Conservative, so we have some common ground. I'm not a big fan of the Constitution, but primarily because it allows TOO much government. But that's a discussion for another day.
I agree with you about the War Powers Act, which was a horrible piece of legislation which allowed the Congress to formally abdicate their responsibility for declaring war to the executive branch. We haven't had a formal declaration of war since World War 2, even though the Constitution requires such a declaration.
One of the most troubling things about the modern conservative movement to me is the extent to which they promote war and the projection of military aggression into foreign nations when such initiatory aggression could so easily be avoided. Part and parcel to this is the excessive demonization of the religion of Islam. An excessive fear of Islam allows neo-cons to concoct justifications for military interventions into the middle east.
This propaganda has real, dangerous consequences. The following article I am linking to demonstrates the sharp rise of "hate"-crimes against against US Muslims during the 2015-16 election cycle, which corresponds with Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims entering the country and the intensified debate and rhetoric about "radical Islam".
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/hate-crimes-rise-along-with-donald-trumps-anti-muslim-rhetoric/
I do hope nobody here throws a hissy fit because the source, The Intercept, is run by the left-of-center Glenn Greenwald because that is immaterial. I certainly don't agree with everything they publish, but I consider Greenwald to be one to the most honest and principled left-wing journalists and his platform is antagonistic to power. He puts out real journalism that is non-partisan.
When conservatives try to make the Orlando shooting or terrorist attacks in general as exclusively a problem with "Islam", they are confusing the issue. Instead of focusing on radical elements of Islam, with an eye to the particular politics and conflicts within the middle east, we start to look at 1.6 billion people around the globe as enemies to be viewed with suspicion.
Religions have always been used as pretexts for human atrocities. The corruption of Christianity throughout the Middle Ages prompted reform efforts that sought to curtail these perversions of their religion. I would not argue against the claim that Islam has a problem with extremist sects and similar reform efforts need to come within the Muslim faith. And I don't believe all the extremism of Islamic fanatics would disappear if the United States pulled out of the Middle East.
But if the terrorism problem is caused simply by Islam, then there is no logical reason why nearly all terrorist activity takes place or is orchestrated from the Middle East. How many terrorist attacks against the US are plotted and executed from Indonesia, which hosts the largest population of Muslims of any country on earth?
10.9% of India's population is Muslim, yet the vast majority are Hindu. If Islam teaches its adherents to "kill the infidels", why does India not have a significant domestic terrorist problem with its Muslim population committing massive terrorist attacks against Hindus?
For that matter, given the 3 million Muslims who currently live in the United States, why aren't there far more homegrown terrorist attacks against US citizens by our Muslim neighbors? Yes, in today's age, ISIS propagandists are able to get a VERY small number of disturbed individuals like Omar Mateen to subscribe to their views and commit a mass shooting. But the incidents have been remarkably few and far between.
Are you aware of how many people are killed every year just in the city of Chicago? Even though our government's foreign policy and the incendiary rhetoric of people like Donald Trump have given the Muslim world, both its extremist AND moderate elements, plenty of reasonable reasons to hate the United States, the threat of terrorism is far less than what people think.
In my view we should treat terrorism the same way we treat gang-related violence in the streets of Chicago. It is a crime problem that we have to defend ourselves against, but we don't have to turn our society upside down, restrict our civil liberties and wage a war in foreign nations because of a relatively small number of criminals who actually pose far less of a threat to our safety than do domestic non-terrorist crime.
And, given the preponderance of evidence and common sense, the threat would be even less if we ceased intervening militarily into the middle east.
One more thing I'd like to add about this subject. I don't understand why it is so difficult to see how people in the Muslim world could be justifiably angry over US foreign policy and intervention into their countries. The way you view Islamic atrocities is quite analogous to how they view Western imperialism. There are far more parallels than you are willing to admit.
Conservatives rightly condemn radical Islam when ISIS soldiers behead journalists and launch terrorist attacks which kill innocent American civilians. They point and say "look at these religious fanatics and savages." "Look how radical and deranged the religion of Islam is."
But people unlucky enough to live in a middle eastern country that our military has waged perpetual war against would understandably look at the West and see Christian crusaders and fanatics who are launching unprovoked and barbaric attacks against the Islamic world, murdering innocents by the millions and seeking to impose its values on a people they look down upon and view as less than human. Their view of the US as Christian crusaders who want to create a worldwide empire that only the United States and, by extension, Christianity controls and influences, while not caring how many innocents they murder along the way is pretty analogous to how conservatives are claiming that Islam wants to create a worldwide caliphate that imposes Islamic law on the world through force.
I'm just asking for some consistency in moral judgment. War-making is very sterile and sophisticated today. We murder people by drones instead of by beheading. We chalk it up as "collateral damage". A statistic rather than a human being whose life was snuffed out for no justifiable reason. You are multiple steps removed from the atrocities committed in your name by military contractors and special forces, so you don't realize how these actions are perceived by the people who have been affected by them.
There are many non-Muslims that live in the middle east who have been hurt greatly by our foreign policy as well.
Here is an article about how Evangelical American Christians are largely to blame for the slaughter and displacement of Iraqi Christians following our foolish invasion and destruction of that country following the attacks of 9/11:
QuoteAt this writing, Islamic State militants are engaging in some of the most horrific persecution of Iraqi Christians since the days of the Roman Empire. Children are being beheaded, parents gunned down, churches burned, and whole populations uprooted, all to feed a monster known as radical Islam.
While I believe that those who commit such atrocities should be held accountable personally for this violence, I am under no delusion as to who bears much of the responsibility for creating the conditions that have nurtured this outrage: conservative American Christians. That's correct; I am calling out the Religious Right for helping to set the stage for the slaughter of Christians.
To interpret my comments in the context that supports them, one has to understand the real disaster that has been conservative evangelical politics, a pestilence that has infected our body politic for nearly four decades. I say "disaster" because no other word will suffice, and I also say it as one who is an evangelical that holds to many of the same views of Holy Scripture as do most conservative evangelicals, including many who are quite vocal in electoral politics. (One significant difference between many other evangelicals and me is that I am not a Dispensationalist, so I don't see the modern state of Israel as a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy and a re-establishment of Israel of ancient Bible times.)
The entire article is worth reading and note that it is written by a conservative Christian, not a leftist:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/william-l-anderson/crimes-of-the-christian-right/
Again and again, our military interventions have caused the most radical and extreme elements of Islam to rise to power in place of more moderate, secular regimes. How do you suppose people who live in the Middle East, both Muslims AND Christians, are going to interpret the actions of the West and the complicity of large segments of the conservative Right who have cheered on these policies?
It's probably not a lot different from how you view the atrocities of radical Islam.
I can't get over the conservative mind and how it can't fathom a harsh rebuke of the policies of the US government, without interpreting such criticism as an attack against "us". It's as if the amorphous concept of American "Greatness" is a deity unto itself, to be worshiped without question.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 23, 2016, 07:51:24 AM
One more thing I'd like to add about this subject. I don't understand why it is so difficult to see how people in the Muslim world could be justifiably angry over US foreign policy and intervention into their countries. The way you view Islamic atrocities is quite analogous to how they view Western imperialism. There are far more parallels than you are willing to admit.
Conservatives rightly condemn radical Islam when ISIS soldiers behead journalists and launch terrorist attacks which kill innocent American civilians. They point and say "look at these religious fanatics and savages." "Look how radical and deranged the religion of Islam is."
But people unlucky enough to live in a middle eastern country that our military has waged perpetual war against would understandably look at the West and see Christian crusaders and fanatics who are launching unprovoked and barbaric attacks against the Islamic world, murdering innocents by the millions and seeking to impose its values on a people they look down upon and view as less than human. Their view of the US as Christian crusaders who want to create a worldwide empire that only the United States and, by extension, Christianity controls and influences, while not caring how many innocents they murder along the way is pretty analogous to how conservatives are claiming that Islam wants to create a worldwide caliphate that imposes Islamic law on the world through force.
I'm just asking for some consistency in moral judgment. War-making is very sterile and sophisticated today. We murder people by drones instead of by beheading. We chalk it up as "collateral damage". A statistic rather than a human being whose life was snuffed out for no justifiable reason. You are multiple steps removed from the atrocities committed in your name by military contractors and special forces, so you don't realize how these actions are perceived by the people who have been affected by them.
There are many non-Muslims that live in the middle east who have been hurt greatly by our foreign policy as well.
Here is an article about how Evangelical American Christians are largely to blame for the slaughter and displacement of Iraqi Christians following our foolish invasion and destruction of that country following the attacks of 9/11:
The entire article is worth reading and note that it is written by a conservative Christian, not a leftist:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/william-l-anderson/crimes-of-the-christian-right/
Again and again, our military interventions have caused the most radical and extreme elements of Islam to rise to power in place of more moderate, secular regimes. How do you suppose people who live in the Middle East, both Muslims AND Christians, are going to interpret the actions of the West and the complicity of large segments of the conservative Right who have cheered on these policies?
It's probably not a lot different from how you view the atrocities of radical Islam.
I can't get over the conservative mind and how it can't fathom a harsh rebuke of the policies of the US government, without interpreting such criticism as an attack against "us". It's as if the amorphous concept of American "Greatness" is a deity unto itself, to be worshiped without question.
As you continue your rants against the West I am
STILL waiting on an answer from you on what Christians and the West did that caused Arabs to invade and enslave southern Europe 1000 years ago.
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 23, 2016, 08:00:08 AM
As you continue your rants against the West I am STILL waiting on an answer from you on what Christians and the West did that caused Arabs to invade and enslave southern Europe 1000 years ago.
jrodefeld, I believe this is the third request from supsalemgr.
Are you just flinging poo just to see if any of it will stick?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 23, 2016, 06:51:32 AMI'm not a big fan of the Constitution, but primarily because it allows TOO much government....
WHAT????
The ONLY thing that's allowed too much government is when we've violated the Constitution, which has been a hell of a lot.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 23, 2016, 06:51:32 AM...10.9% of India's population is Muslim, yet the vast majority are Hindu. If Islam teaches its adherents to "kill the infidels", why does India not have a significant domestic terrorist problem with its Muslim population committing massive terrorist attacks against Hindus...
Brother, a lack of geopolitical understanding about the world situation is leading to some ridiculous conclusions. The north of India has been virtually at WAR for nearly the last 40 years. Yes, terrorism is down...right now. But if you look at the circumstances for WHY that's so...it gets easier to understand. Until 9/11 when we went into Afghanistan, India had more deaths due to terrorism every year than Afghanistan has in it's peak years since we invaded. 2 to 3 thousand a year, every year. Why? Cause all those rag head radicals streamed back across into Pakistan and on up to the borders to fight us, leaving India in relative peace...UNTIL we leave, Afghanistan falls back into the Taliban's control and they can go back down to India to kill Hindi.
Brother...you're just flat wrong headed. India has been at war with Islam, virtually for it's entire history, but especially since they won independence.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 23, 2016, 06:51:32 AM....For that matter, given the 3 million Muslims who currently live in the United States, why aren't there far more homegrown terrorist attacks against US citizens by our Muslim neighbors? Yes, in today's age, ISIS propagandists are able to get a VERY small number of disturbed individuals like Omar Mateen to subscribe to their views and commit a mass shooting. But the incidents have been remarkably few and far between...
And it's estimated that about 1/3 of them support terrorism, either spiritually, intellectually, financially or through actual actions. A little quick math would tell ya that's about a million potential "disturbed individuals." And in Europe...that number is estimated to be over 30 million.
Listen, a little reality check is in order. I'd rather die at the hands of some rag head on a mission from Ala and standing on my feet, than live groveling at the feet of a tyrannical government. Period!
But controlling the numbers and makeup of the people who are allowed to immigrate to this country dates back to our very founding and the Constitution. That, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses..." carp at the feet of a gift from the French, was from a poem written by a Zionist who wanted her own Jewish homeland. SHE...was an isolationist. If we allow ourselves these romantic notions of America, the world and our history...WE ARE DOOMED!!!
They don't care what you think. They don't care what you believe. They won't stop because we leave them alone. They haven't in 2000 years and they won't start now. What they WILL do, is use every form of terror, intimidation and insanity at their disposal to subjugate as much of the world as we allow and the 2/3rds of "peaceful Muslims" who romantics seem to believe redeem the rest...will fall right in line with them. That leaves 1.6 billion potential "disturbed individual." A mushroom cloud over LA and we are DONE!
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 23, 2016, 06:51:32 AMFor that matter, given the 3 million Muslims who currently live in the United States, why aren't there far more homegrown terrorist attacks against US citizens by our Muslim neighbors? Yes, in today's age, ISIS propagandists are able to get a VERY small number of disturbed individuals like Omar Mateen to subscribe to their views and commit a mass shooting. But the incidents have been remarkably few and far between.
God, what an idiot. In terms of the ratio of U.S. population-to-number of terrorist attacks and people killed in the U.S., someone who is Muslim is 44,000 % more likely to be involved in aggravated murder ( and mass murder) of innocent people than any other single demographic. More muzz terrorist attacks and mass murders in a single year than those of Jews, Christians, Hindus or people of other religions combined over the last thirty years.
Maybe you need to cut a hole in your stomach so that you can read better and swallow some Drano to clear the sewage out of your head.
Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on June 23, 2016, 08:38:29 AM
God, what an idiot. In terms of the ratio of U.S. population-to-number of terrorist attacks and people killed in the U.S., someone who is Muslim is 44,000 % more likely to be involved in aggravated murder ( and mass murder) of innocent people than any other single demographic. More muzz terrorist attacks and mass murders in a single year than those of Jews, Christians, Hindus or people of other religions combined over the last thirty years.
Maybe you need to cut a hole in your stomach so that you can read better and swallow some Drano to clear the sewage out of your head.
Yup
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 23, 2016, 08:00:08 AM
As you continue your rants against the West I am STILL waiting on an answer from you on what Christians and the West did that caused Arabs to invade and enslave southern Europe 1000 years ago.
Obviously nothing, considering the "West", such as it was in that era, consisted of Nomadic tribes with little to no contact with the Arab world. I don't see how this is a relevant question considering I never said that all violent acts committed by religious fanatics was the fault of the United States or of military intervention. What I DID say is that, in the modern era, suicide terrorism is a tactic that has been employed almost exclusively by occupied people against the occupier nation, with the goal to spark policy change and drive the foreign occupier out of their lands.
I am further saying that US interventions into the Middle East are immoral on their own and conservatives ought to condemn them. I am saying you ought to understand how our foreign policy is viewed by the larger Muslim world, and why understandable anti-West sentiment is widespread among citizens of the Middle East.
Finally, anti-Muslim rhetoric is at best counter-productive and a distraction and at worst, supports disastrous military policy and racial violence against peaceful Arabs and Muslims.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 23, 2016, 09:00:25 AM
Obviously nothing, considering the "West", such as it was in that era, consisted of Nomadic tribes with little to no contact with the Arab world. I don't see how this is a relevant question considering I never said that all violent acts committed by religious fanatics was the fault of the United States or of military intervention. What I DID say is that, in the modern era, suicide terrorism is a tactic that has been employed almost exclusively by occupied people against the occupier nation, with the goal to spark policy change and drive the foreign occupier out of their lands.
I am further saying that US interventions into the Middle East are immoral on their own and conservatives ought to condemn them. I am saying you ought to understand how our foreign policy is viewed by the larger Muslim world, and why understandable anti-West sentiment is widespread among citizens of the Middle East.
Finally, anti-Muslim rhetoric is at best counter-productive and a distraction and at worst, supports disastrous military policy and racial violence against peaceful Arabs and Muslims.
Nice attempted dodge. Quite frankly your anti-Christian and anti-West rants are getting old. Are you a paid Obama staffer?
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 23, 2016, 09:09:13 AM
Nice attempted dodge. Quite frankly your anti-Christian and anti-West rants are getting old. Are you a paid Obama staffer?
Trolls tend to do that.
Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on June 23, 2016, 08:38:29 AM
God, what an idiot. In terms of the ratio of U.S. population-to-number of terrorist attacks and people killed in the U.S., someone who is Muslim is 44,000 % more likely to be involved in aggravated murder ( and mass murder) of innocent people than any other single demographic. More muzz terrorist attacks and mass murders in a single year than those of Jews, Christians, Hindus or people of other religions combined over the last thirty years.
Maybe you need to cut a hole in your stomach so that you can read better and swallow some Drano to clear the sewage out of your head.
Surely you've got some facts to back up your claims about how much more dangerous US Muslims are than everyone else?
Some significant research has been done on the views of Muslim Americans, and the preponderance of evidence seems to contradict everything you are saying. Here is a Pew Research study on the matter:
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
Some of the findings would surprise you.
Just 35 percent of Muslims view their religion as the only true faith, compared to 30 percent of Christians. Just like 64 percent of U.S. Christians, a majority of Muslim Americans think different religions can lead to eternal life. Pew even found that Muslims are far less prone to scriptural literalism than Evangelicals.
A Gallup survey found that Muslim Americans are the MOST likely of any group to reject Military attacks against civilians:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/56/files/2015/12/Muslim-attacks.jpg
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/18/muslims-less-likely-to-support-violence-than-other-religions-and-other-surprises/
QuoteAs someone who was raised in a Muslim household but has stopped practicing Islam, I have a unique perspective on the religion. For example, I tend to be more critical of Islam than a practicing Muslim, but the careless political rhetoric of the last month has been incredibly disturbing. Absurd it may be, it is still terribly dangerous.
The Niskanen Center, a nonprofit libertarian think tank based in Washington, D.C., published an article compiling recent statistics that shows how fantastical and unwarranted the attacks have been. Even more importantly, they demonstrate how little we know about American Muslims.
Using both Pew surveys and Gallup polls, the center strung together several studies to show how Muslims' views stack up against those of other religions. Interestingly, while some statistics are mentioned here or there in articles, in general, there is surprisingly little research into the beliefs of Muslims in the U.S., in part because they comprise a fairly small percentage (about one percent) of the entire population.
If you have wondered how to help your Muslim neighbors and friends against Islamophobic attacks, you may want to start by educating yourself on the small number of existing polls and surveys. Here's a spoiler: They reveal that almost no American Muslims hold many of the radical beliefs attributed to Muslims and used to stoke fear.
For example, a Pew survey in 2011 found that like 64 percent of U.S. Christians, the majority of Muslims also believe that different faiths can lead to an eternal life. In other words, most American Muslims think there might not be just one right religion that brings salvation; a drastically different view from ISIS.
Another allegation often levied against Muslims, and part of the reason Muslims are repeatedly asked to condemn terrorist attacks, is that some believe that Muslims support the efforts of Islamic radicals. How could they not? Aren't they following the same religion? But Gallup's 2010 survey of American Muslims found that Muslims were the least likely of any religious group to identify with other members of their religion abroad. In contrast, 81 percent of Mormons strongly identified with "those worldwide who share [their] religious identity." Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all came in before Muslims.
Even more telling, more than any other religious group, Muslims are the most likely to condemn violence against civilians. Here are the statistics. In its 2010 survey, Gallup asked whether military killing of civilians is ever justified. Individuals had the option of answering Never, Sometimes, and Depends. Remarkably, 78 percent of responding Muslims said violence is never justified against civilians. The only group in the study that comes close to condemning violence with such adamancy are people who belong to no religion (including atheists and agnostics), of whom 56 percent think violence is never justified against civilians.
These statistics illustrate a drastically different picture from that which is painted by certain public figures. These surveys show that some Americans woefully misunderstand Muslims.
There is much more in the Niskanen Center's report. But what should we do with these statistics? Perhaps most importantly, we must recognize how little Americans understand about their fellow Muslim citizens. There studies speak volumes about how the character of Muslims is often lost in the conversation. Muslim Americans not only follow Islam (and some more devoutly than others), but they are also American citizens, employees, employers, lawyers, teachers, doctors, scientists, journalists, and military personnel.
We need further research into American Muslims—their occupations, where they live, and what they believe. The goal is for Americans, and others abroad, to recognize what they don't know about Muslims and stop filling in the blanks with fear-mongering. — Shafaq Hasan
Again, I have the preponderance of actual research on my side it would seem. Could you please cite chapter and verse where you got that "44,000 % more likely to be involved in aggravated murder ( and mass murder) of innocent people than any other single demographic" statistic? I'll take a wild guess and assume you pulled that statistic straight out of your ass.
Let me ask a serious question. Do you personally know ANY American Muslims? Have you ever had any deep conversations with American Muslims? I have and if you had, you'd probably not believe the insane propaganda you've been fed.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't see any of you posting links, studies and graphs to back up your assertions.
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 23, 2016, 09:09:13 AM
Nice attempted dodge. Quite frankly your anti-Christian and anti-West rants are getting old. Are you a paid Obama staffer?
How is that a dodge? I directly answered the question, while at the same time pointing out it's complete irrelevance. I'm not a paid Obama staffer. Like I said, I never voted for Obama and I sure as hell won't be voting for Hillary, or Trump for that matter. I am a libertarian voluntaryist, which means I am neither left nor right.
Why are Muslims so violent?
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
Quote from: taxed on June 23, 2016, 09:25:38 AM
Why are Muslims so violent?
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
That is a thinly veiled propaganda website masquerading as a "fact-based" critique. Furthermore, it doesn't examine what actual Muslims say they believe or act in the real world, it just cites passages from the Quran and teachings of Sharia Law which dodges the point I was making altogether. There are dozens of similar websites chronicling all the horrible things written in the Bible, or believed by different groups of fundamentalist Christians. I would never cite such a source in a denunciation of Christianity because that would be dishonest. I'd look to what most Christians actually believe and how they actually act.
That is what is most important. I cited several studies of actual populations of Muslims that were scientifically rigorous and peer-reviewed. Most populations of Muslims in First World nations like the United States do NOT believe the things that conservatives think they believe nor do they act the way conservatives think they act. This directly contradicts what a lot of you had been saying on this very thread.
I asked for facts demonstrating why you were right and I was wrong and you linked to the same propaganda website that focuses almost exclusively on scriptural literalism.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 23, 2016, 09:45:21 AM
That is a thinly veiled propaganda website masquerading as a "fact-based" critique. Furthermore, it doesn't examine what actual Muslims say they believe or act in the real world, it just cites passages from the Quran and teachings of Sharia Law which dodges the point I was making altogether. There are dozens of similar websites chronicling all the horrible things written in the Bible, or believed by different groups of fundamentalist Christians. I would never cite such a source in a denunciation of Christianity because that would be dishonest. I'd look to what most Christians actually believe and how they actually act.
That is what is most important. I cited several studies of actual populations of Muslims that were scientifically rigorous and peer-reviewed. Most populations of Muslims in First World nations like the United States do NOT believe the things that conservatives think they believe nor do they act the way conservatives think they act. This directly contradicts what a lot of you had been saying on this very thread.
I asked for facts demonstrating why you were right and I was wrong and you linked to the same propaganda website that focuses almost exclusively on scriptural literalism.
Can I move to an Islamic country and openly practice being a Christian?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 23, 2016, 09:20:35 AM
How is that a dodge? I directly answered the question, while at the same time pointing out it's complete irrelevance. I'm not a paid Obama staffer. Like I said, I never voted for Obama and I sure as hell won't be voting for Hillary, or Trump for that matter. I am a libertarian voluntaryist, which means I am neither left nor right.
You have been ranting about how the West's actions in the ME is the reason Muslim aggression. I give an example and you acknowledge the aggression was not caused by the West and try to give i the back of your hand. You failed. That is a dodge.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 23, 2016, 09:17:02 AM
Surely you've got some facts to back up your claims about how much more dangerous US Muslims are than everyone else?
Some significant research has been done on the views of Muslim Americans, and the preponderance of evidence seems to contradict everything you are saying. Here is a Pew Research study on the matter:
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
Some of the findings would surprise you.
Only the ones which have even a shred of truth to them, since most of the "facts" nuts like you quote are pure nonsense. Just 35 percent of Muslims view their religion as the only true faith, compared to 30 percent of Christians. Just like 64 percent of U.S. Christians, a majority of Muslim Americans think different religions can lead to eternal life. Pew even found that Muslims are far less prone to scriptural literalism than Evangelicals.
A Gallup survey found that Muslim Americans are the MOST likely of any group to reject Military attacks against civilians:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/56/files/2015/12/Muslim-attacks.jpg
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/18/muslims-less-likely-to-support-violence-than-other-religions-and-other-surprises/
Again, I have the preponderance of actual research on my side it would seem.
Only to someone who is severely detached from reality, as you appear to be.
Could you please cite chapter and verse where you got that "44,000 % more likely to be involved in aggravated murder ( and mass murder) of innocent people than any other single demographic" statistic? I'll take a wild guess and assume you pulled that statistic straight out of your ass.
If we would speak of pulling things out of asses, maybe you could start by removing your own head from yours. The proof of your own stupidity is posted below
Let me ask a serious question. Do you personally know ANY American Muslims?
Many, both personally and in the workplace. Several of them tried to engage me in substantive debate, and had their heads handed to them, just as you are in the process of having done to you. The smarter muzz I know are all ex muzz and largely refer me to Jihad Watch website for any information about the Satanic Verses
Have you ever had any deep conversations with American Muslims? I have and if you had, you'd probably not believe the insane propaganda you've been fed.
If we would speak of insane propaganda, what would we say of "ISIS is contained"? heh heh Lunatic see thyself!
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't see any of you posting links, studies and graphs to back up your assertions.
I doubt it. Anti-American, pro-muzz fanatics are largely incapable of admitting error. You have already been proven wrong and reacted with vituperation and arrogant denial, because you are obviously not smart enough to engage in substantive dialogue with people who are more informed than you.
You are an idiotic anti-white bigot and I don't bother discussing things with fanatics but just to shut you up, here are some facts. Since 1970 there have been roughly 75 confirmed muzz attacks with at least one fatality in the US with roughly 3300 people murdered and hundreds more wounded.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx
Globally, international terrorist incidents since 1970 total around 120 thousand with 85% muzz, 10% Marxist (leftist) roughly 4% narco terrorists and the rest something else. (from the Global Terrorism Database created by Pinkerton and now in the public domain maintained by the University of Maryland). Look it up yourself if you don't believe me, you disgusting anti-American moron.
The adult muzz population is only about 1.8 million dope, so all of the people murdered by muzz in the USA are attributable to that population pool which is less than 1% of the population. Total terrorism attributable to non-muzz actors is less than 1000. Muzz are less than 1% of the population, but have committed more than 85% of the international terrorist murders and attacks in USA in the last thirty years. The number of terrorist attacks committed by self-identified agents of international organizations representing any other religion are statistically closer to zero than 1%.
So relative to the population each muzz murder representing a percentage point, the percentage of the population that commits 85% of the terrorist murders is less than 1%, which means that the likelihood that a terrorist attack in the USA will be perpetrated by a muzz is 44,000% (440 times) higher than any other group, relative to the population. Actually it's a lot higher after Orlando but I'll let you do the math. You CAN do math, can't you?
And last, Pew Research: 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
The rest of your post is pure muzz propaganda and total nonsense, particularly nonprofitquarterly.org and unworthy of a response.
What is the color of the sun in your universe?
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 23, 2016, 09:17:02 AM
Surely you've got some facts to back up your claims about how much more dangerous US Muslims are than everyone else?
I guess we have missed all the killings of innocents by Buddhists, Hindus, and other religious groups. Care to share some links that report these incidents? Why would the MSM not report these incidents?
Some significant research has been done on the views of Muslim Americans, and the preponderance of evidence seems to contradict everything you are saying. Here is a Pew Research study on the matter:
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
Some of the findings would surprise you.
Just 35 percent of Muslims view their religion as the only true faith, compared to 30 percent of Christians. Just like 64 percent of U.S. Christians, a majority of Muslim Americans think different religions can lead to eternal life. Pew even found that Muslims are far less prone to scriptural literalism than Evangelicals.
A Gallup survey found that Muslim Americans are the MOST likely of any group to reject Military attacks against civilians:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/56/files/2015/12/Muslim-attacks.jpg
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/18/muslims-less-likely-to-support-violence-than-other-religions-and-other-surprises/
Again, I have the preponderance of actual research on my side it would seem. Could you please cite chapter and verse where you got that "44,000 % more likely to be involved in aggravated murder ( and mass murder) of innocent people than any other single demographic" statistic? I'll take a wild guess and assume you pulled that statistic straight out of your ass.
Let me ask a serious question. Do you personally know ANY American Muslims? Have you ever had any deep conversations with American Muslims? I have and if you had, you'd probably not believe the insane propaganda you've been fed.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't see any of you posting links, studies and graphs to back up your assertions.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 22, 2016, 09:25:46 PM
What exact horror would you expect to emerge if the Soviet Union did indeed have some influence over Mossadegh?
But look at the unintended consequences of our military interventions. Our coup of Mossadegh created the hostage crisis. Our funding and support for the radical Mujahadeen when the Soviets were involved in Afghanistan during the 1980s came back to haunt us when they turned against us during the 1990s and 2000s when they became Al Qaeda and launched a handful of successful terrorist attacks against the United States.
Thats it? That's the best you got, More Liberal Tarian's talking about blowback like a broken record?
The horror I'd expect from Soviet puppetry of Iran's leader would be eventual control of the Gulf, the Gulf states and an empowered Soviet Union armed with nukes and plenty of revenue from oil, oil to control Europe as they are doing now with Iran Oil. Tell me how any of this would be a "good thing"? Who knows what wars their destabilization of the Middle East would have perpetrated. One thing is certain, an empowered Soviet Union well funded by middle east oil would have a lot of control over Europe and other world regions, and a lot more money to buy more nukes and more fancy stuff for their armed forces....the SOVIET STATE WOULDN't HAVE FAILED ...(Perhaps?)how is
THAT good?
SO now our (and Great Britain's) coup in Iran lead to Afghanistan and the rise of OBL and Al Q'ieda....boy that's a stretch...once again I must explain to you the facts, which you previously never addressed when I told you that the USSR's MILITARY INTERVENTION in AFGHANISTAN created Al'Qieda, once again Ben Laudin a
Saudi revolutionary shows up with an army of religious Mercenaries to fight the Russians, allies himself with certain tribes, forms the Taliban and then Al'Q'ieda,
he never sought nor received any aide from the USA, that myth has been debunked time and again. WE FINANCED BEN LAUDIN's ENEMIES, tribes who hated the tribes he allied with over some age old fueds.
This is why his greatest enemy in Afghanistan was not the Russians but the northern tribesmen who saw him as a foreign interloper who had no business in their country and wanted him out. Thats why he had their leader assassinated two weeks before 9/11....he knew the US would come gunning for him and use these guys against him...smart move.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT and stop making a fool of yourself and stop repeating the propaganda America's enemies WITHIN and WITHOUT are feeding you.
Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on June 23, 2016, 10:16:27 AM
You are an idiotic anti-white bigot and I don't bother discussing things with fanatics but just to shut you up, here are some facts. Since 1970 there have been roughly 75 confirmed muzz attacks with at least one fatality in the US with roughly 3300 people murdered and hundreds more wounded.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx
Globally, international terrorist incidents since 1970 total around 120 thousand with 85% muzz, 10% Marxist (leftist) roughly 4% narco terrorists and the rest something else. (from the Global Terrorism Database created by Pinkerton and now in the public domain maintained by the University of Maryland). Look it up yourself if you don't believe me, you disgusting anti-American moron.
The adult muzz population is only about 1.8 million dope, so all of the people murdered by muzz in the USA are attributable to that population pool which is less than 1% of the population. Total terrorism attributable to non-muzz actors is less than 1000. Muzz are less than 1% of the population, but have committed more than 85% of the international terrorist murders and attacks in USA in the last thirty years. The number of terrorist attacks committed by self-identified agents of international organizations representing any other religion are statistically closer to zero than 1%.
So relative to the population each muzz murder representing a percentage point, the percentage of the population that commits 85% of the terrorist murders is less than 1%, which means that the likelihood that a terrorist attack in the USA will be perpetrated by a muzz is 44,000% (440 times) higher than any other group, relative to the population. Actually it's a lot higher after Orlando but I'll let you do the math. You CAN do math, can't you?
And last, Pew Research: 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
The rest of your post is pure muzz propaganda and total nonsense, particularly nonprofitquarterly.org and unworthy of a response.
What is the color of the sun in your universe?
I don't see any links to support your claims, apart from The Religon of Peace website, which is not regarded as an objective source (to put it VERY mildly). From perusing that site, I see no footnotes, no citations of any kind. If that is all you can muster in a defense, then you might as well concede the argument now.
Furthermore, you are employing a rhetorical trick. By carefully defining what qualifies as a "terrorist" attack you can ignore violent crime committed by other groups of Americans to single out Muslims. Not only that, but there is an unwarranted logical leap when you assume that terrorist acts (however you define them) committed by Muslims are motivated by the religion and not some ancillary views, political aims, or mental illness.
Sheila Musaji, founding editor of The American Muslim magazine and organization, said about The Religion of Peace Website:
"This site lists acts committed around the world – some in wars, some having nothing to do with Islam, but to do with nationalist or political struggles, some in civil wars. No links are given. No sources for any of this just a list of supposed attacks carried out by "Islamic terrorists"."In fact, The American Muslim website lists a very comprehensive resource of Muslims who are outspoken against radicalism and terrorism. It is well worth a look:
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_2/
Robert Pape, Michael Scheuer and many other experts and researchers claim based on their rigorous study, that the primary motives for Islamic terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS are political in nature, not religious. The preponderance of evidence, and I have linked to several studies, shows that American Muslims and indeed MOST Muslims around the world reject the radical tactics and beliefs of radical groups, publicly denounce them and are no more likely (and in many cases less likely) to engage in violence against their neighbors that are any other group.
Listen, Islamophobia is practically an industry in some conservative and Christian circles within the United States so what you THINK you know about actual Muslims and their beliefs is likely to be heavily clouded by people with an agenda. I'm sure you'll retort that people I am relying on have an agenda, but the difference is I have cited actual peer-reviewed, rigorous studies and surveys to bolster my points, while you have relied on the same propaganda website that has no footnotes, no sources and very little credibility.
Quote from: taxed on June 23, 2016, 09:49:43 AM
Can I move to an Islamic country and openly practice being a Christian?
Bumped for jrodefeld...
:popcorn:
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 24, 2016, 12:59:02 AM
I don't see any links to support your claims, apart from The Religon of Peace website, which is not regarded as an objective source (to put it VERY mildly). From perusing that site, I see no footnotes, no citations of any kind. If that is all you can muster in a defense, then you might as well concede the argument now.
ROFL!!!! Spoken like a true lib. You disagree with the message, attack the messenger, and guess where that tactic is listed, hint Ayer's has a notation.
QuoteFurthermore, you are employing a rhetorical trick. By carefully defining what qualifies as a "terrorist" attack you can ignore violent crime committed by other groups of Americans to single out Muslims. Not only that, but there is an unwarranted logical leap when you assume that terrorist acts (however you define them) committed by Muslims are motivated by the religion and not some ancillary views, political aims, or mental illness.
Wow, more evidence to your lib status, redefine the subject as a freedom fighter, another Ayre's notation.
QuoteSheila Musaji, founding editor of The American Muslim magazine and organization, said about The Religion of Peace Website:
"This site lists acts committed around the world – some in wars, some having nothing to do with Islam, but to do with nationalist or political struggles, some in civil wars. No links are given. No sources for any of this just a list of supposed attacks carried out by "Islamic terrorists"."
In fact, The American Muslim website lists a very comprehensive resource of Muslims who are outspoken against radicalism and terrorism. It is well worth a look:
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_2/
Oh God, you're killing me here, you actually posted a link created by the enemy to discredit him?
Stop it, at my age too much laughter isn't a good thing either.
QuoteRobert Pape, Michael Scheuer and many other experts and researchers claim based on their rigorous study, that the primary motives for Islamic terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS are political in nature, not religious. The preponderance of evidence, and I have linked to several studies, shows that American Muslims and indeed MOST Muslims around the world reject the radical tactics and beliefs of radical groups, publicly denounce them and are no more likely (and in many cases less likely) to engage in violence against their neighbors that are any other group.
Listen, Islamophobia is practically an industry in some conservative and Christian circles within the United States so what you THINK you know about actual Muslims and their beliefs is likely to be heavily clouded by people with an agenda. I'm sure you'll retort that people I am relying on have an agenda, but the difference is I have cited actual peer-reviewed, rigorous studies and surveys to bolster my points, while you have relied on the same propaganda website that has no footnotes, no sources and very little credibility.
Amazing, you must be taking the Kool Aid intravenously now. Islamophobia, seriously?
Listen dumb ass, if someone tells you they want to kill you, enslave your family and you see evidence of it around the world on a daily basis, or experience it on our very own soil, that is not an irrational fear, but to ignore it is beyond stupid, and in your case, to actually make excuses for it, is beyond ridiculous, it's treason.
I've watched you go on and on with this bull shit for quiite awhile now, and you are seriously beginning to look deranged, seriously deranged.
Your myopic interest in a subject in going to bat for the enemy isn't healthy, ask yourself, why would you come to a TEA forum and avoid all other topics yet fight for the enemy that wants to kill you, why do you do that?
You claim you aren't a Muscum, yet there you are, preaching that they are somehow misunderstood and that we are the ones with an irrational fear.
I know what it is, you are a Muscum spreading propaganda, just like the quran commands you to do with infidels, so it's OK, come out of the closet, we won't bite
Quote from: taxed on June 24, 2016, 05:35:58 AM
Bumped for jrodefeld...
It depends on which Muslim country you are talking about. Yes, in many Muslim countries you can openly practice Christianity and other religions.
I'm not going to defend the governments of Middle Eastern countries. In my view, all governments are oppressive to one degree or another and theocracy is just one example of a very oppressive State. You've got to stop speaking in generalities about any group of people. Many Muslim majority countries are inhospitable to religions other than Islam and you won't see me defending that.
I've done some research on the subject of religious freedom in Muslim majority nations and I found this to be an article worth citing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/10/are-muslim-countries-really-unreceptive-to-religious-freedom/
An important and relevant passage:
QuoteDo these aggregate scores prove that Islam is indeed generally inhospitable to religious freedom, then? No. Zooming in from a satellite view to a more fine-grained view reveals far greater diversity. First, it shows that 12 out of 47 Muslim-majority states fall into the category of "low restrictions on religious freedom," meaning that they are essentially religiously free. Even among the other 35 Muslim-majority states, which have moderate, high or very high levels of restriction, there are significantly different patterns of repression, which yield different conclusions about Islam. There are two patterns in particular, namely "Islamist," which represent 21 of these countries, and "secular repressive," which represent 14 of these countries.
The Islamist pattern represents those Muslim-majority states that deny religious freedom by using the state's laws, policies and coercive power to promote and enforce a highly restrictive and traditional form of sharia, or Islamic law, in all areas of life – economy, culture, religious practice, education, family life, dress and many others. Such states include Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Cooperation Council members, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq and the Sudan, but also (beyond the Middle East) Malaysia, Indonesia and Nigeria. Iran and Saudi Arabia arguably deserve the status of standard-bearers due to how widely they are emulated and how actively they seek to spread their version of Islam.
Islamist countries offer the strongest evidence against Islam's openness to religious freedom. But they are not the only sort of Muslim-majority countries that deny religious freedom. Of the repressive Muslim-majority countries, 40 percent fall into a "secular repressive" pattern. Examples of such countries, which repress religious freedom in the name of secular authoritarian regimes, include Uzbekistan, pre-Arab Spring Egypt, pre-AKP Turkey, Algeria and pre-revolutionary Tunisia. If the Iranian Revolution is the inspiration for Islamist states, the French Revolution is the model for this pattern. Here, the power of government is also used to manage religion, but on behalf of an agenda of modernity involving social equality, nationalism and economic development along Western lines. Secular repressive regimes deny religious freedom by heavily restricting the activities of Muslims and often minority religions, too. The roots of this denial are not traditional Islam, which such regimes seek to contain and privatize, not to promote. The standard bearer of restrictive secular regimes is the Republic of Turkey, founded by Kemal Ataturk in 1924. After World War II, many Arab states followed this model as well.
Finally, the Muslim world also contains religiously free regimes, adding even further complexity to the negative judgment of the satellite view. Examples of such regimes include Kosovo, Djibouti, Albania, Mali, Senegal and Sierra Leone – most of them noticeably outside the Arab world. These regimes – about one-quarter of Muslim-majority countries – show that the denial of religious freedom is far from the whole story in the Muslim world. There may be no systematic explanation for why these countries are religiously free. For some, the roots of freedom may lie in a particular form of Islamic theology or culture that embodies tolerance. In others, freedom may have arisen through a modus vivendi between Islam and other religions at some point in the country's history. All of these cases, though, show that Muslim populations can, under certain circumstances, prove hospitable to religious freedom.
While Islam may suffer a dearth of religious freedom in the aggregate, Islam is not necessarily the reason behind this dearth. Secular repressive governments are a widespread source of repression in the Muslim world. Even Islamist regimes often have their origin in historical circumstances that belie an easy linkage of Islamic teachings with religious repression. The Iranian Revolution of 1979, for instance, cannot be understood apart from the severe secular repression of Shah Reza Pahlavi's secular repressive regime of the mid-twentieth century. This, combined with the presence of religiously free countries in Islam, points to the possibility that religious freedom in the Muslim world might expand.
As usual the story is quite a bit more nuanced than you have been saying.
And what about the Muslim populations of the United States, Europe and other first world, developed nations? Their views tend to be even more moderate and tolerant still, as I demonstrated earlier.
Frankly, this whole discussion from my perspective does NOT have to do with whether Muslim majority nations are oppressive to their own people. It doesn't even have to do with the merits of Islam as a religion. What it has to do with is whether Islam itself is the primary reason why Americans are subject to terrorist attacks or whether other factors are much more important in understanding the terrorism problem as it relates to the United States and other first world nations.
Quote from: Solar on June 24, 2016, 06:07:20 AM
ROFL!!!! Spoken like a true lib. You disagree with the message, attack the messenger, and guess where that tactic is listed, hint Ayer's has a notation.
Wow, more evidence to your lib status, redefine the subject as a freedom fighter, another Ayre's notation.
Oh God, you're killing me here, you actually posted a link created by the enemy to discredit him?
Stop it, at my age too much laughter isn't a good thing either.
Amazing, you must be taking the Kool Aid intravenously now. Islamophobia, seriously?
Listen dumb ass, if someone tells you they want to kill you, enslave your family and you see evidence of it around the world on a daily basis, or experience it on our very own soil, that is not an irrational fear, but to ignore it is beyond stupid, and in your case, to actually make excuses for it, is beyond ridiculous, it's treason.
I've watched you go on and on with this bull shit for quiite awhile now, and you are seriously beginning to look deranged, seriously deranged.
Your myopic interest in a subject in going to bat for the enemy isn't healthy, ask yourself, why would you come to a TEA forum and avoid all other topics yet fight for the enemy that wants to kill you, why do you do that?
You claim you aren't a Muscum, yet there you are, preaching that they are somehow misunderstood and that we are the ones with an irrational fear.
I know what it is, you are a Muscum spreading propaganda, just like the quran commands you to do with infidels, so it's OK, come out of the closet, we won't bite
Hold everything. Are you seriously claiming that a moderate non-violent American Muslim like Sheila Musaji, who openly condemns radical strains of Islam, is
The Enemy?! I am honestly, seriously hesitant to use this word because the left bandies it about so carelessly, but this cannot be called anything other than straight up bigotry.
Here is what her organization "The American Muslim" states as it's mission for existing:
QuoteAbout Us
The American Muslim is dedicated to the promotion of peace, justice, and reconciliation for all humanity. We strive to:
*
Provide an open forum for the discussion of ideas and issues of concern to Muslims in America from various points of view (based on Qur'an and Sunnah) representing no one school of thought, ethnic group or organization, but to encourage all to be represented in these pages and to speak for themselves.
*
Provide a forum for and encourage inter-community dialogue particularly on divisive issues, and to encourage interfaith dialogue to find common ground for cooperation on issues of mutual concern
*
Provide the most comprehensive information possible about individual and group efforts and projects to enable networking and cooperative effort.
*
Offer support and encouragement and provide shura (consultation) to those who are speaking publicly on behalf of the Muslim community
*
Help Muslims with a deep personal commitment to Islam and to America to locate each other. Help people of faith (Muslims, Christians and Jews) who share our concern for dialogue, peaceful resolution of problems to find each other so they can work together.
*
Provide a balanced, moderate, alternative voice focusing on the spiritual, dimension of Islam rather than the more often heard voice of extreme political Islamism.
Get it straight, it is savages like ISIS and Al Qaeda that are not only OUR enemy, but enemies of all civilized mankind. The savagery and brutality of ISIS is a blight on humanity, but the views of ISIS are NOT shared by most Muslims, and certainly not peaceful, civilized American Muslims like Sheila Musaji!
Most reasonable people who want to defeat ISIS believe that we need the support of moderate Muslims, yet you are lumping them into the same category as the brutal killers we are ostensibly fighting against! Aren't conservatives like you always saying "well if Islam is so moderate, why aren't they condemning radical jihadists?"
Well if you had any circumspection whatsoever you'd know that people like Sheila Musaji and other American Muslims have been doing just that.
And you're only response is to label them "the enemy". Disgraceful.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 24, 2016, 06:41:01 AM
Hold everything. Are you seriously claiming that a moderate non-violent American Muslim like Sheila Musaji, who openly condemns radical strains of Islam, is The Enemy?! I am honestly, seriously hesitant to use this word because the left bandies it about so carelessly, but this cannot be called anything other than straight up bigotry.
Here is what her organization "The American Muslim" states as it's mission for existing:
Get it straight, it is savages like ISIS and Al Qaeda that are not only OUR enemy, but enemies of all civilized mankind. The savagery and brutality of ISIS is a blight on humanity, but the views of ISIS are NOT shared by most Muslims, and certainly not peaceful, civilized American Muslims like Sheila Musaji!
Most reasonable people who want to defeat ISIS believe that we need the support of moderate Muslims, yet you are lumping them into the same category as the brutal killers we are ostensibly fighting against! Aren't conservatives like you always saying "well if Islam is so moderate, why aren't they condemning radical jihadists?"
Well if you had any circumspection whatsoever you'd know that people like Sheila Musaji and other American Muslims have been doing just that.
And you're only response is to label them "the enemy". Disgraceful.
Oh, I'm sorry for the confusion, I labeled you as an enemy sympathizer. How could you miss that?
Now answer the question honestly if you are allowed. Are you muslim?
Quote from: Solar on June 24, 2016, 06:07:20 AM
ROFL!!!! Spoken like a true lib. You disagree with the message, attack the messenger, and guess where that tactic is listed, hint Ayer's has a notation.
I forgot to answer these first two things, so taken aback was I at the insidious claim that essentially all Muslims are "the enemy".
I am discounting that source because it contains no footnotes, no citations, and no way to verify any of the "facts" they represent there. Do you understand why an intelligent person would want the ability to verify the assertions made by a website if they are going to take them seriously?
If I am refuted by a scholarly article that is academically rigorous and is backed up by evidence, I am happy to change my position. I've done it many times in the past and I'm sure I'll do it many times in the future.
I'm still waiting for even a single academic, scientific or peer-reviewed paper or study that backs up any of the things you have been saying. I've posted my share of links that meet those criteria.
Quote from: Solar on June 24, 2016, 06:07:20 AM
Wow, more evidence to your lib status, redefine the subject as a freedom fighter, another Ayre's notation.
No, that's not what I said. Any act of killing innocent people is wrong, period. My point was that you don't consider armed robbery to be terrorism. You don't consider violent gang conflict in our inner cities to be terrorism. And most mass shootings are not even classified as terrorist acts, with the exception of this recent one with Omar Mateen because he is a Muslim and was influenced by ISIS propaganda.
You were claiming that Islam makes people inherently more violent and then proceeded to spout off assertions about the number of terrorist attacks that have been committed by Muslims (without any footnotes, links or way to verify of course) compared to other religions. Yet this is flawed because most violent crime is not considered to be "terrorism".
Robert Pape had found that fully 50% of all suicide terrorists that he studied since 1980 have been secular, non-religious. Surprised? I thought you would be. But this is what happens when you actually look at the data.
Look, watch carefully. I am now going to cite exactly where I got that figure that half of suicide attackers since 1980 were secular.
Here:
http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2015/05/05/myth-busting-robert-pape-on-isis-suicide-terrorism-and-u-s-foreign-policy/
See how easy that was?
Here's the relevant passage:
QuoteYour 2005 book, Dying to Win, documents a number of remarkable findings about suicide terrorism. Who are suicide terrorists, and what are they after?
For the most part they're responding to the military occupation of a community that they care a lot about.
I put together the first complete data set of suicide attacks after 9/11. I did that because, like many people who come into suicide terrorism, I thought I was going to figure out when an Islamic fundamentalist goes from being a devout, observant Muslim to somebody who then is suicidally violent. But there was no data available, so I put together this complete database of suicide attacks around the world from the early 1980s to 2003.
I was really struck that half the suicide attacks were secular. I began to look at the patterns and I noticed that they were tightly clustered, both in where they occurred and the timing, and that 95 percent of the suicide attacks were in response to a military occupation.
And military occupation matters because it represents not exactly how many soldiers are on a piece of soil, but rather control of the local government, the local economic system, and the local social system. It's the military occupation of the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan that allows us to inform and impose change in women's rights. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing; what I'm saying is that when you impose women's rights at the point of a gun, then that creates a sense in the local community that they've lost their self-determination. What you're seeing with not all, but most, suicide terrorists is a response to loss of self-determination for their local community.
Quote from: Solar on June 24, 2016, 06:45:47 AM
Oh, I'm sorry for the confusion, I labeled you as an enemy sympathizer. How could you miss that?
Now answer the question honestly if you are allowed. Are you muslim?
Well you're exact words were "you posted a link created by the enemy" so I took you to mean exactly what you said. If you misspoke, fine I won't belabor the point.
But labeling me an "enemy sympathizer" is not much better. It's a manipulative tactic, not something a person arguing in good faith would use to label those that disagree with them.
Am I a Muslim? No, I'm not. I have no religious affiliation, and I generally think that organized religions are harmful because of their hierarchical organization and unquestionable dogmatic teachings. I'd probably be labeled an agnostic, though I don't care for labels.
And if I were to choose a religion that I'd feel most comfortable with, it wouldn't be Islam. It would probably be Buddhism or some variation.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 24, 2016, 06:27:17 AM
It depends on which Muslim country you are talking about. Yes, in many Muslim countries you can openly practice Christianity and other religions.
I'm not going to defend the governments of Middle Eastern countries. In my view, all governments are oppressive to one degree or another and theocracy is just one example of a very oppressive State. You've got to stop speaking in generalities about any group of people. Many Muslim majority countries are inhospitable to religions other than Islam and you won't see me defending that.
I've done some research on the subject of religious freedom in Muslim majority nations and I found this to be an article worth citing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/10/are-muslim-countries-really-unreceptive-to-religious-freedom/
An important and relevant passage:
As usual the story is quite a bit more nuanced than you have been saying.
And what about the Muslim populations of the United States, Europe and other first world, developed nations? Their views tend to be even more moderate and tolerant still, as I demonstrated earlier.
Frankly, this whole discussion from my perspective does NOT have to do with whether Muslim majority nations are oppressive to their own people. It doesn't even have to do with the merits of Islam as a religion. What it has to do with is whether Islam itself is the primary reason why Americans are subject to terrorist attacks or whether other factors are much more important in understanding the terrorism problem as it relates to the United States and other first world nations.
Interesting. So in the majority of Muslim nations, there are Christian churches, etc?
Quote from: taxed on June 24, 2016, 07:36:23 AM
Interesting. So in the majority of Muslim nations, there are Christian churches, etc?
Say, bwana.....
Saudi Arabia has its hands in both Trump's and Clinton's campaigns, yes? And aren't they the same peaceful tolerant muslims who decapitate Christians for apostasy? And aren't they the LARGEST and WEALTHIEST of all muslim countries (save Berunei)? In most people's eyes wouldn't that make them the opinion leader on "true Islam"?
So if "many" countries allow Christians, how many
do not force Christians to pay a fine for BEING Christian? And which muslim countries DO NOT charge that fee, if they don't kill the apostates?
Just trying to get a handle on Moron Troll's idea of fair and ethical treatment of other religions. It's OK to behead someone for not wearing a veil in public...or adultery, the U.S. Democrats' ideal indoor sport?
This troll hasn't replied to the genital-mutilating child-molesting inbred savagery involved in the Religion of Pieces. Wonder why that is? Questions, questions...and a halfwit lying POS leftist troll, trying to sell us that the sky is green.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 24, 2016, 12:59:02 AM
Listen, Islamophobia is practically an industry in some conservative and Christian circles within the United States so what you THINK you know about actual Muslims and their beliefs is likely to be heavily clouded by people with an agenda. I'm sure you'll retort that people I am relying on have an agenda, but the difference is I have cited actual peer-reviewed, rigorous studies and surveys to bolster my points, while you have relied on the same propaganda website that has no footnotes, no sources and very little credibility.
You still don;t get it do ya bucko....for once I DO agree with Pape....it is not so much about religion than it is CONTROL, using religion as a means of justification To Control, conquer and subjegate, terrorism is just a tool for them, a tool to frighten, cow and TERRIFY people, murder them in the most brutal way,
KIll one to terrify ten thousand...that is another Sun Tzu quote and strategy. They win when guys like Pape and You perpetrate the myth that military intervention causes this..
wrong Military intervention is the only thing that can STOP them and we as responsible citizens can;t rely on just our military it is EVERY person's duty to help, report on them, thwart them and if necessary fight them with whatever weapon you can get ahold of. If you have that type of unity that type of resisitance against them THEY CAN'T WIN
You still don;t understand that IT ISN'T ABOUT ISLAMIC TERRORISM....(Even though that is our main threat now) IT IS ABOUT AMERICA's ENEMIES Enemies of the free world, the forces of darkness, criminals, outlaw and revolutionaries who want CONTROL. Islamofacism is the best word I can use to describe it. Just Like Hitler, Like Stalin like Pol Pot or any other savage murderer down thru history who you can name, no matter what religion.
A good example is the Palestinians, about a 1/4 of them are CHRISTIAN...yup...even Archfiend Yasser Arafat's WIFE was a Christian, they never really played the "Muslim" angle but they grew into it seeing the support it got from their Wahabbi freinds in Saudi.
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 15, 2016, 01:48:04 AMThis recent Orlando shooting is yet another example of blowback. Our so-called "War on Terrorism" and the preceding decades of sanctions, bombs, and the overthrow of elected leaders in the middle east has, and will continue, to directly result in the deaths of American civilians.
Islam has been at war with us for decades. Long before 911, and long before we retaliated against them.
Get your facts straight.
I don't really care what their motivation is. If you want to kill Americans, be forewarned that we will retaliate, and in your so called home country.
A lot of this goes back to the west's support of a Jewish state in the ME in the 1930-40's and has only gotten worse since.
I remember the Palestinians being very active and dangerous.
They were always blowing something up, like air planes.
Here's a few
First wave (1968 to 1980): 1. Many countries - Palestinian terror 1968 on.
2. USA - RFK assassination 1968.
3. Italy - El Al Flight 426 1968.
4. Greece - El Al Flight 253 1968.
5. Switzerland - El Al Flight 432 1969.
6. Germany - Frankfurt 1969.
7. UK - Marks and Spencer 1969.
8. Italy - TWA Flight 840 1969.
9. UK - Zim shipping 1969.
10. Belgium - El Al, Brussels 1969.
11. Greece - El Al, Athens 1969.
12. Germany - Munich airport 1970.
13. Switzerland - Swissair Flight 330 1970.
14. Various countries - Dawson's Field hijackings 1970.
15. Austria - Sabena Flight 571 1972.
16. Germany - Munich Olympics 1972.
17. UK - Israeli embassy 1972.
18. USA - letter bomb 1972.
19. USA - Hamaas Khaalis 1973.
20. USA - Stephen Gilroy 1973.
21. USA - Yosef Alon 1973.
22. Greece - El Al, Athens 1973.
23. Holland - Japan Air Lines Flight 404 1973.
24. Greece - Athens airport 1973.
25. Austria - train hostages 1973.
26. Italy - Pan Am Flight 110 1973.
27. UK - Teddy Sieff 1973.
28. USA - Zebra killings 1973-74.
29. UK - London bank 1974.
30. Greece - TWA Flight 841 1974.
31. France - Paris airport 1975.
32. Austria - OPEC 1975.
33. Greece - Entebbe hijacking 1976.
34. USA - Hanafi Siege 1977.
35. Spain - Lufthansa Flight 181 1977.
36. Various countries - poisoned oranges 1978.
37. France - Paris airport 1978.
38. UK - London 1978.
39. Many countries - Iranian terror 1979 on.
40. France - Paris bombs 1979.
41. Belgium - Brussels airport 1979.
42. Austria - Vienna synagogue 1979.
43. Spain - Max Mazin 1980.
44. UK - Mohamed Mustafa Ramadan 1980.
45. Belgium - Yosef Halachi 1980.
46. Belgium - Antwerp 1980.
47. Italy - Bologna bombing 1980.
48. France - Paris synagogue 1980. L
Lot's more since then, they were just getting started
http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.attacks.west.html
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 24, 2016, 07:07:33 AM
I forgot to answer these first two things, so taken aback was I at the insidious claim that essentially all Muslims are "the enemy".
I too can play the ignore the crux of an argument game.
Yes, the entire Muscum religion/political system is in complete opposition to our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights!
So yes dumb ass, they are the enemy, and I'm seriously getting sick and tired of your bull shit contrary to reality!
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 24, 2016, 06:27:17 AM
It depends on which Muslim country you are talking about. Yes, in many Muslim countries you can openly practice Christianity and other religions...
...Frankly, this whole discussion from my perspective does NOT have to do with whether Muslim majority nations are oppressive to their own people. It doesn't even have to do with the merits of Islam as a religion. What it has to do with is whether Islam itself is the primary reason why Americans are subject to terrorist attacks or whether other factors are much more important in understanding the terrorism problem as it relates to the United States and other first world nations.
HERE is why it matters. It's about as good an explanation TO a Muslim FROM a former Muslim as you will ever hear.
https://youtu.be/cAoXgZLRee0
Watch it to add a little actual intellectual direction to the confusion that's spinning around in that head of yours.
Quote from: jdzbrain on June 24, 2016, 09:28:19 AM
HERE is why it matters. It's about as good an explanation TO a Muslim FROM a former Muslim as you will ever hear.
https://youtu.be/cAoXgZLRee0
Watch it to add a little actual intellectual direction to the confusion that's spinning around in that head of yours.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I was looking for that clip! :thumbup:
Quote from: Solar on June 24, 2016, 09:30:04 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I was looking for that clip! :thumbup:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthedroideffect.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Fwoman-slapping-man1.jpg&hash=dba3325fb3b8e2e03d4f9630729ed2aa0babdd07)
Quote from: jrodefeld on June 24, 2016, 12:59:02 AM
I don't see any links to support your claims,
So you CAN'T do math. I see. The Global Terrorism Database reference is not objective enough for you? Wow. Listen, disgusting anti-conservative fanatic moron. , I suggest that you consult a doctor on a cranialectomy.
apart from The Religon of Peace website, which is not regarded as an objective source (to put it VERY mildly).
Not by you, because you reject out of hand ANY source that disagrees with you because you are a complete idiot - to put it mildly. I suppose you believe that the list they printed is not factual. I suppose the Global Terrorism Database is also "suspect". What a stupid f____ you are.
From perusing that site, I see no footnotes, no citations of any kind. If that is all you can muster in a defense, then you might as well concede the argument now.
ESAD moron. YOU CLAIM THOSE 75 attacks never happened? ARE YOU INSANE??? Don't like the facts so claim that they are not real, because you have no substantive retort than to whine and moan with you opinion that it's not true WITHOUT A SINGLE REFUTORY FACT OF YOUR OWN. What mendacious swine. The facts are correct, yet the ones you have cited are 100% BS. That is the classic pattern - moronic vermin like you demand proof, then when proof is produced, you claim that it's not "good enough" because it doesn't come from one of your own mendacious verminous sources. That's a hackneyed legalistic trial attorney rhetorical tactic called "self-reinforcing logic" AKA a "closed circle" aka diversion. Sort of like the feedback loop from your brain to your *ss.
Furthermore, you are employing a rhetorical trick. By carefully defining what qualifies as a "terrorist" attack you can ignore violent crime committed by other groups of Americans to single out Muslims. Not only that, but there is an unwarranted logical leap when you assume that terrorist acts (however you define them) committed by Muslims are motivated by the religion and not some ancillary views, political aims, or mental illness.
Moron, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TERRORISM by the FBI definition - "any violent act the demonstrated and expressed intent of which is to effect ideological or political policy". I suppose we are to believe that you are smarter than the FBI, which classified nearly those attacks as terrorism. Even a dope like you should be able to follow that. Only a truly occluded lunatic could possibly criticize someone for staying on topic. ARE YOU ON DRUGS!?!
Sheila Musaji, founding editor of The American Muslim magazine and organization, said about The Religion of Peace Website:
"This site lists acts committed around the world – some in wars, some having nothing to do with Islam, but to do with nationalist or political struggles, some in civil wars. No links are given. No sources for any of this just a list of supposed attacks carried out by "Islamic terrorists"."
American Muslim Magazine is an objective source. Right. Like CAIR, I suppose. What a filthy, mendacious swine you are. THE FACTS PRINTED ARE CORRECT. Your refusal to accept them says infinitely more about your own poor emotional health and abysmal character than anything else. The Global Terrorism Database says that you and your muzz friend are full of sh**.
In fact, The American Muslim website lists a very comprehensive resource of Muslims who are outspoken against radicalism and terrorism. It is well worth a look:
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_2/
Screw you and your erudite holier-than-thou BS, troll. I'm done with you. Jihad Watch is the only site I read and the only site I need to read. That you can't accept the reality of the muzz menace is your problem. And of course, the problem of everyone unfortunate enough to share the world with you and people like you. Enjoy having muzz living in your town. Better yet, invite them to live with you. Moron.
Robert Pape, Michael Scheuer and many other experts and researchers claim based on their rigorous study, that the primary motives for Islamic terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS are political in nature, not religious.
God, what an ignoramus. POLITICS AND ISLAM ARE INSEPARABLE. That's why it is so dangerous. Every "reform movement" of the muzz religion has been exterminated by mass murder. Are you out of your mind?
The preponderance of evidence, and I have linked to several studies, shows that American Muslims and indeed MOST Muslims around the world reject the radical tactics and beliefs of radical groups, publicly denounce them and are no more likely (and in many cases less likely) to engage in violence against their neighbors that are any other group.
Hah hah hah taqqiya and dhimmitide. Look up THOSE terms tool! I've seen your childish, faux intellectual certitude about your own opinion in hundreds of others who have posted. It reveals that you have the emotional maturity and education of a rather dull-witted child. You will never say, see think or do anything that's really new, because you are a feeling-centered personality type who makes decisions based mostly on a grossly exaggerated sense of your own importance in the universe and a base certainty and faith in your own egocentric views. Rational information holds no interest for you unless it fits your own preconceived template. You are more animal than human being. I hope you get hit by a bus. You are far more dangerous than any anti-muzz fanatic because you are a blithering ignoramus with delusions of your own genius.
Listen, Islamophobia is practically an industry in some conservative and Christian circles within the United States so what you THINK you know about actual Muslims and their beliefs is likely to be heavily clouded by people with an agenda.
What the Hell are you talking about?. Cite one example or shut up. You complain about not getting documentation, then spout bigoted, hateful anti-conservative, anti-Christian nonsense without even a minuscule particulate of it. Repeating your own opinions as facts is SOP for dopes like you and then simply quoting others and claiming that it "proof". You are practicing "opinionology" that is the use of one highly-biased, fact devoid opinion to validate another. What a genius you are. (cuckoo clock sounds). GLOBAL TERRORISM DATABASE MAINTAINED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GOING BACK TO THE 1970s says that you are a COMPLETE IGNORAMUS and have ABSOLUTELY NO F_ING IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
I'm sure you'll retort that people I am relying on have an agenda, but the difference is I have cited actual peer-reviewed, rigorous studies and surveys to bolster my points, while you have relied on the same propaganda website that has no footnotes, no sources and very little credibility.
GLOBAL TERRORISM DATABASE, MORON, is just FULL OF CHARTS AND GRAPHS AND STATISTICS!! ARE YOU DEAF OR JUST ON DRUGS OR SOMETHING!?! Only in your own mind are any of those things you wrote in the above statement true. Your mind is an echo-chamber. May God help you and anyone foolish enough to be anywhere near you at any time.
You're not a libertarian, you are more like some sort of vile, monstrous, mendacious, degenerate anti-conservative troll.
Quote from: Solar on June 24, 2016, 09:22:43 AM
I too can play the ignore the crux of an argument game.
Yes, the entire Muscum religion/political system is in complete opposition to our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights!
So yes dumb ass, they are the enemy, and I'm seriously getting sick and tired of your bull shit contrary to reality!
Here, let him read this. It should make him have a case of apoplexy. :lol: :lol:
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/01/08/cut-the-crap-the-problem-is-islam-and-it-has-to-be-exterminated-period/
Quote from: Dori on June 24, 2016, 08:55:22 AM
Islam has been at war with us for decades. Long before 911, and long before we retaliated against them.
Get your facts straight.
I don't really care what their motivation is. If you want to kill Americans, be forewarned that we will retaliate, and in your so called home country.
A lot of this goes back to the west's support of a Jewish state in the ME in the 1930-40's and has only gotten worse since.
I remember the Palestinians being very active and dangerous.
They were always blowing something up, like air planes.
Here's a few
First wave (1968 to 1980): 1. Many countries - Palestinian terror 1968 on.
2. USA - RFK assassination 1968.
3. Italy - El Al Flight 426 1968.
4. Greece - El Al Flight 253 1968.
5. Switzerland - El Al Flight 432 1969.
6. Germany - Frankfurt 1969.
7. UK - Marks and Spencer 1969.
8. Italy - TWA Flight 840 1969.
9. UK - Zim shipping 1969.
10. Belgium - El Al, Brussels 1969.
11. Greece - El Al, Athens 1969.
12. Germany - Munich airport 1970.
13. Switzerland - Swissair Flight 330 1970.
14. Various countries - Dawson's Field hijackings 1970.
15. Austria - Sabena Flight 571 1972.
16. Germany - Munich Olympics 1972.
17. UK - Israeli embassy 1972.
18. USA - letter bomb 1972.
19. USA - Hamaas Khaalis 1973.
20. USA - Stephen Gilroy 1973.
21. USA - Yosef Alon 1973.
22. Greece - El Al, Athens 1973.
23. Holland - Japan Air Lines Flight 404 1973.
24. Greece - Athens airport 1973.
25. Austria - train hostages 1973.
26. Italy - Pan Am Flight 110 1973.
27. UK - Teddy Sieff 1973.
28. USA - Zebra killings 1973-74.
29. UK - London bank 1974.
30. Greece - TWA Flight 841 1974.
31. France - Paris airport 1975.
32. Austria - OPEC 1975.
33. Greece - Entebbe hijacking 1976.
34. USA - Hanafi Siege 1977.
35. Spain - Lufthansa Flight 181 1977.
36. Various countries - poisoned oranges 1978.
37. France - Paris airport 1978.
38. UK - London 1978.
39. Many countries - Iranian terror 1979 on.
40. France - Paris bombs 1979.
41. Belgium - Brussels airport 1979.
42. Austria - Vienna synagogue 1979.
43. Spain - Max Mazin 1980.
44. UK - Mohamed Mustafa Ramadan 1980.
45. Belgium - Yosef Halachi 1980.
46. Belgium - Antwerp 1980.
47. Italy - Bologna bombing 1980.
48. France - Paris synagogue 1980. L
Lot's more since then, they were just getting started
http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.attacks.west.html
jr believes all that is Bush's fault.
Quote from: MACMan on June 24, 2016, 10:52:04 AM
Here, let him read this. It should make him have a case of apoplexy. :lol: :lol:
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/01/08/cut-the-crap-the-problem-is-islam-and-it-has-to-be-exterminated-period
If that fool was rational, your terrific post would set him to rights, but just as with most positions taken by anti-conservative, anti-Christian fanatics (such as with Anthropogenic Global Warming), they did not arrive at their opinions through a rational process and therefore cannot be talked out of it by application of rational argument. Their FEELINGS tell them that their feelings and intuitions are more important in making important decisions than facts. If they have an interest in facts, it is only in facts that support their apriori position, not in anything which challenges their world view. They are in a nutshell, intellectual weaklings and dilatants for whom discussion is much closer to (forgive me) masturbation than to an exchange of thoughts, information and opinions.
This MF is a particularly obtuse specimen of anti-conservative fanatic, whose abject, abysmal deeply-abiding ignorance is exceeded only by his self-adoration and thinly veiled grossly-exaggerated sense of his own importance in the universe.
Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on June 24, 2016, 12:30:43 PM
If that fool was rational, your terrific post would set him to rights, but just as with most positions taken by anti-conservative, anti-Christian fanatics (such as with Anthropogenic Global Warming), they did not arrive at their opinions through a rational process and therefore cannot be talked out of it by application of rational argument. Their FEELINGS tell them that their feelings and intuitions are more important in making important decisions than facts. If they have an interest in facts, it is only in facts that support their apriori position, not in anything which challenges their world view. They are in a nutshell, intellectual weaklings and dilatants for whom discussion is much closer to (forgive me) masturbation than to an exchange of thoughts, information and opinions.
This MF is a particularly obtuse specimen of anti-conservative fanatic, whose abject, abysmal deeply-abiding ignorance is exceeded only by his self-adoration and thinly veiled grossly-exaggerated sense of his own importance in the universe.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20140209013353%2Fcreepypasta%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fa9%2FDon%26%23039%3Bt_Feed_the_Troll.jpeg&hash=a86e95f688a61ace7340dc42a56e740dffa02cde)
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 24, 2016, 12:17:36 PM
jr believes all that is Bush's fault.
Great post!!!
BTW The Global Terrorism Database lists more than 130,000 international terrorist attacks in the world since the 1970s. The distinction in classification depends on whether an attack was done as part of an international network (affiliated operative), or a localized faction with local concerns. For instance, Basque separatists in Spain are not considered international terrorists because their concerns are local and regional. However, the al queda terrorists that bombed the train in Madrid are part of the international network of Salafist jihadists whose concerns, support and affiliates are global, not local or regional and often lie outside the nation where the attack took place.
So when a terrorist murders people in the USA and the evidence is that the attack was motivated, encouraged and/or materially supported by any internationally-based group, it is classified as an act of international terrorism, not domestic.
FBI says that there may also be "trigger events" which "push" international terrorists to attack which are not necessarily linked to the larger terrorist act or ideology. For instance in the San Bernardino attack, there was apparently an argument or disagreement with a coworker that took place immediately prior to the attack. But because the larger reason for the attack was that the principles had decided to act as agents of "jihad" and then attacked many people not connected directly to the trigger event, the FBI (and the G.T.D.) still classified the attack as an international terrorist event, not "workplace violence".
Even if a terrorist is a citizen of the nation in which he attacks, if the targets were harmed because of allegiance to an international terrorist network's expressed ideology/modus operandi/strategic methodology (with or without direct affiliation), it is classified as an international terrorist attack.
Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on June 24, 2016, 12:30:43 PM
If that fool was rational, your terrific post would set him to rights, but just as with most positions taken by anti-conservative, anti-Christian fanatics (such as with Anthropogenic Global Warming), they did not arrive at their opinions through a rational process and therefore cannot be talked out of it by application of rational argument. Their FEELINGS tell them that their feelings and intuitions are more important in making important decisions than facts. If they have an interest in facts, it is only in facts that support their apriori position, not in anything which challenges their world view. They are in a nutshell, intellectual weaklings and dilatants for whom discussion is much closer to (forgive me) masturbation than to an exchange of thoughts, information and opinions.
This MF is a particularly obtuse specimen of anti-conservative fanatic, whose abject, abysmal deeply-abiding ignorance is exceeded only by his self-adoration and thinly veiled grossly-exaggerated sense of his own importance in the universe.
In short what your saying, he does not like showing he just keeps make a fool of himself. :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on June 24, 2016, 01:03:48 PM
In short what your saying, he does not like showing he just keeps make a fool of himself. :lol:
The style of argument and absence of actual knowledge of how Americans think has finally sunk in here. Reminds me of that phony American over at Lamont's place.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crtqgkkrwtgqrsgtxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fwfqgwskgbxbsgbrssfgxbsfsskdbq%2F1%2F1595431%2F13966112%2Ffunnyaussiemapvi-vi.jpg&hash=8b5e6cc139b7927ff1bf9d2c53ecd5eabd41bb7b)
Quote from: quiller on June 24, 2016, 01:15:26 PM
The style of argument and absence of actual knowledge of how Americans think has finally sunk in here. Reminds me of that phony American over at Lamont's place.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crtqgkkrwtgqrsgtxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fwfqgwskgbxbsgbrssfgxbsfsskdbq%2F1%2F1595431%2F13966112%2Ffunnyaussiemapvi-vi.jpg&hash=8b5e6cc139b7927ff1bf9d2c53ecd5eabd41bb7b)
The police are just a phone call away. :rolleyes: In this day and age they come to write a report as they can not get there in time to help. Or there told to stand down.
Quote from: Dori on June 24, 2016, 08:55:22 AM
Islam has been at war with us for decades. Long before 911, and long before we retaliated against them.
Get your facts straight.
I don't really care what their motivation is. If you want to kill Americans, be forewarned that we will retaliate, and in your so called home country.
A lot of this goes back to the west's support of a Jewish state in the ME in the 1930-40's and has only gotten worse since.
I remember the Palestinians being very active and dangerous.
They were always blowing something up, like air planes.
Here's a few
First wave (1968 to 1980): 1. Many countries - Palestinian terror 1968 on.
2. USA - RFK assassination 1968.
3. Italy - El Al Flight 426 1968.
4. Greece - El Al Flight 253 1968.
5. Switzerland - El Al Flight 432 1969.
6. Germany - Frankfurt 1969.
7. UK - Marks and Spencer 1969.
8. Italy - TWA Flight 840 1969.
9. UK - Zim shipping 1969.
10. Belgium - El Al, Brussels 1969.
11. Greece - El Al, Athens 1969.
12. Germany - Munich airport 1970.
13. Switzerland - Swissair Flight 330 1970.
14. Various countries - Dawson's Field hijackings 1970.
15. Austria - Sabena Flight 571 1972.
16. Germany - Munich Olympics 1972.
17. UK - Israeli embassy 1972.
18. USA - letter bomb 1972.
19. USA - Hamaas Khaalis 1973.
20. USA - Stephen Gilroy 1973.
21. USA - Yosef Alon 1973.
22. Greece - El Al, Athens 1973.
23. Holland - Japan Air Lines Flight 404 1973.
24. Greece - Athens airport 1973.
25. Austria - train hostages 1973.
26. Italy - Pan Am Flight 110 1973.
27. UK - Teddy Sieff 1973.
28. USA - Zebra killings 1973-74.
29. UK - London bank 1974.
30. Greece - TWA Flight 841 1974.
31. France - Paris airport 1975.
32. Austria - OPEC 1975.
33. Greece - Entebbe hijacking 1976.
34. USA - Hanafi Siege 1977.
35. Spain - Lufthansa Flight 181 1977.
36. Various countries - poisoned oranges 1978.
37. France - Paris airport 1978.
38. UK - London 1978.
39. Many countries - Iranian terror 1979 on.
40. France - Paris bombs 1979.
41. Belgium - Brussels airport 1979.
42. Austria - Vienna synagogue 1979.
43. Spain - Max Mazin 1980.
44. UK - Mohamed Mustafa Ramadan 1980.
45. Belgium - Yosef Halachi 1980.
46. Belgium - Antwerp 1980.
47. Italy - Bologna bombing 1980.
48. France - Paris synagogue 1980. L
Lot's more since then, they were just getting started
http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.attacks.west.html
Excellent post Dori.
What this appeasing traitor fails to realize, as you pointed out, we will retaliate, and as far as the winner writing history, the recorders will show that there was no collateral damage, 100 million combatants killed and Islum was finally at peace existing on a glass desert.
Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on June 24, 2016, 12:30:43 PM
If that fool was rational, your terrific post would set him to rights, but just as with most positions taken by anti-conservative, anti-Christian fanatics (such as with Anthropogenic Global Warming), they did not arrive at their opinions through a rational process and therefore cannot be talked out of it by application of rational argument. Their FEELINGS tell them that their feelings and intuitions are more important in making important decisions than facts. If they have an interest in facts, it is only in facts that support their apriori position, not in anything which challenges their world view. They are in a nutshell, intellectual weaklings and dilatants for whom discussion is much closer to (forgive me) masturbation than to an exchange of thoughts, information and opinions.
This MF is a particularly obtuse specimen of anti-conservative fanatic, whose abject, abysmal deeply-abiding ignorance is exceeded only by his self-adoration and thinly veiled grossly-exaggerated sense of his own importance in the universe.
As a libertarian, I come to hold my views through a strict application of reason, logic, and evidence. I don't believe what I believe because of my "feelings". I'm not afraid to take unpopular positions if they are, in fact, true and factually verified. I don't cower before leftist political correctness.
But the actual facts of the matter are that, to the extent that we face a threat from Muslim terrorism, it has very little to do with the religion of Islam and almost everything to do with blowback for our foreign policy. This is what the FBI says, it's what experts like Pape and Scheuer say, and it's what almost every Muslim terrorist over the past thirty years has said. I've studied the statistics that Pape has compiled and I've formed my conclusions based on what the evidence shows.
Let's talk about empathy for a minute. I know you think "empathy" is some pansy left-wing metrosexual thing, but it is nothing of the sort. Empathy is about putting yourself in someone else's shoes and understanding at a real and personal level their life experiences and suffering. How would you feel if you and your family faced the daily reality of US military occupation of your country? If your daily experiences revolved around wondering when and where the next US drone bombing will take place, hoping and preying that a member of your family or a friend is not among those killed that day? How would you react if you voted in a democratic election and the election was cancelled by a foreign power who didn't approve of your choice? Suppose they installed an unelected dictator in place of your legitimately elected leader and you had no recourse?
Suppose a foreign nation decided to literally shut down your economy through the application of harsh sanctions which meant that you couldn't even get access to the food and medicine you need to keep your family alive? Suppose hundreds of thousands died due to starvation and lack of medical care? Imagine if this was ALL due to the interference in your internal affairs by a foreign power?
You see, by "other"-izing the victims of such brutality by focusing on the nominal religion of most of them, you create a space where you can feel comfortable denying them their humanity without having to feel empathy towards them. They're a "barbaric, savage" people, you tell yourself. It doesn't matter if their children are starved, or innocents are killed by the thousands, if you think their lives are inherently worth less than an American.
The truth of the matter is that it is a matter of pure luck that some of us happen to be born on one side or another of an imaginary line drawn on a map.
Now, let's get down to facts. The CIA has spoken about "blowback" for decades, yet you cannot seem to grasp this basic concept. If any rational person was on the receiving end of US foreign intervention into their nation, they would want revenge for the "collateral damage" that our military inflicted upon them. There is a clear cause-and-effect to US intervention which precipitates further radicalization. It's shocking I know, but people don't like having their families killed.
Resentment towards an occupying foreign nation is the overwhelming motivation for suicide terrorism according to all the studies that have been done on the subject.
I have to reiterate that by recognizing the above, this does not excuse the actions of the barbaric, radical regimes in the middle east in how they treat women, gays, and so forth. As a libertarian, I'd want to see liberalization of all nations (classical liberalism, not modern progressivism) but it is not the role of any country to force other nations to reform themselves into freer societies. In the first place, it never works. In the second place, claiming a "humanitarian" rationale for military intervention has almost always been a pretext for more nefarious motives.
Let's look at one of the most oppressive Muslim nations, Saudi Arabia. It is ironic how we wouldn't dare invade and nation-build in that country because we need the oil and they are seen as a "strategic" ally (so much for humanitarianism). But suppose we did want to intervene in that nation to rid the world of the "Islamic menace".
What you have to realize is that, as with most nations around the world and especially oppressive dictatorships, innocent people are unfortunate enough to live under the rule of tyrants and it would be illogical to blame them all for the actions of their governments. Who is it that suffers the most from our interventions though? Sanctions hurt the poorest people while the ruling classes still manage to get their food, medicine and so forth. Even when we topple dictatorships, inevitably the most radical elements are unleashed, they take advantage of the chaos we wrought and they take power. This is exactly what happened in Iraq.
What if a foreign country started blaming YOU for all the actions of your government? Suppose their remedy to deal with the "radical American" problem was to start bombing OUR country, but instead of killing politicians, military and Supreme Court justices, they killed you and your family? This intervention would cause either or both of these things. First, you'd probably rally behind your current government instead of opposing it because you have now been attacked by a foreign power and a national security emergency engenders solidarity. Secondly, you might take matters into your own hands and seek some modicum of justice for your murdered family members. Terrorism has proved the most effective method of fighting back for a small and weak people against a powerful Nation State.
It is telling that even though our government's policies have provided every motivation for radicalization and terrorist attacks against us, that the threat of Muslim terrorism on American soil is very low. Do you know how many Americans have been killed by Muslim terrorists since 9/11?
The answer is 96.Of course every American death is a tragedy in it's own right, but put this into perspective. Look at how many Americans are killed each year on our highways. How many are killed by homicides. Yet we are so eager to wage endless war against "terrorism", spend trillions of dollars and lose thousands of lives to fight against a threat that is less powerful and less dangerous than nearly any other danger we face on a daily basis?
Robert Pape mentioned in his exhaustive report on suicide terrorism, that
fully 50% of all terrorists who committed attacks since 1980 were secular, NOT religious.
The FBI's own reports show that more than 90% of all terrorist attacks committed on American soil from 1980 to 2005 were committed by non-Muslims:
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum
I'm sure you're aware of this, but Neo-con politicians, Israel-first lobbyists, the military industrial complex, and assorted Right-Wing groups benefit greatly from perpetuating a US empire and asserting American "strength" and "greatness" around the globe. They have every incentive for you to continue believing that the entire terrorism problem has to do with the religion of Islam. That is why I don't see websites like Jihad Watch and The Religion of Peace to be trustworthy. You have to be aware of the agenda behind such outlets.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 01, 2016, 03:42:53 PM
As a libertarian, I come to hold my views through a strict application of reason, logic, and evidence. I don't believe what I believe because of my "feelings". I'm not afraid to take unpopular positions if they are, in fact, true and factually verified. I don't cower before leftist political correctness.
But the actual facts of the matter are that, to the extent that we face a threat from Muslim terrorism, it has very little to do with the religion of Islam and almost everything to do with blowback for our foreign policy. This is what the FBI says, it's what experts like Pape and Scheuer say, and it's what almost every Muslim terrorist over the past thirty years has said. I've studied the statistics that Pape has compiled and I've formed my conclusions based on what the evidence shows.
Let's talk about empathy for a minute. I know you think "empathy" is some pansy left-wing metrosexual thing, but it is nothing of the sort. Empathy is about putting yourself in someone else's shoes and understanding at a real and personal level their life experiences and suffering. How would you feel if you and your family faced the daily reality of US military occupation of your country? If your daily experiences revolved around wondering when and where the next US drone bombing will take place, hoping and preying that a member of your family or a friend is not among those killed that day? How would you react if you voted in a democratic election and the election was cancelled by a foreign power who didn't approve of your choice? Suppose they installed an unelected dictator in place of your legitimately elected leader and you had no recourse?
Suppose a foreign nation decided to literally shut down your economy through the application of harsh sanctions which meant that you couldn't even get access to the food and medicine you need to keep your family alive? Suppose hundreds of thousands died due to starvation and lack of medical care? Imagine if this was ALL due to the interference in your internal affairs by a foreign power?
You see, by "other"-izing the victims of such brutality by focusing on the nominal religion of most of them, you create a space where you can feel comfortable denying them their humanity without having to feel empathy towards them. They're a "barbaric, savage" people, you tell yourself. It doesn't matter if their children are starved, or innocents are killed by the thousands, if you think their lives are inherently worth less than an American.
The truth of the matter is that it is a matter of pure luck that some of us happen to be born on one side or another of an imaginary line drawn on a map.
Now, let's get down to facts. The CIA has spoken about "blowback" for decades, yet you cannot seem to grasp this basic concept. If any rational person was on the receiving end of US foreign intervention into their nation, they would want revenge for the "collateral damage" that our military inflicted upon them. There is a clear cause-and-effect to US intervention which precipitates further radicalization. It's shocking I know, but people don't like having their families killed.
Resentment towards an occupying foreign nation is the overwhelming motivation for suicide terrorism according to all the studies that have been done on the subject.
I have to reiterate that by recognizing the above, this does not excuse the actions of the barbaric, radical regimes in the middle east in how they treat women, gays, and so forth. As a libertarian, I'd want to see liberalization of all nations (classical liberalism, not modern progressivism) but it is not the role of any country to force other nations to reform themselves into freer societies. In the first place, it never works. In the second place, claiming a "humanitarian" rationale for military intervention has almost always been a pretext for more nefarious motives.
Let's look at one of the most oppressive Muslim nations, Saudi Arabia. It is ironic how we wouldn't dare invade and nation-build in that country because we need the oil and they are seen as a "strategic" ally (so much for humanitarianism). But suppose we did want to intervene in that nation to rid the world of the "Islamic menace".
What you have to realize is that, as with most nations around the world and especially oppressive dictatorships, innocent people are unfortunate enough to live under the rule of tyrants and it would be illogical to blame them all for the actions of their governments. Who is it that suffers the most from our interventions though? Sanctions hurt the poorest people while the ruling classes still manage to get their food, medicine and so forth. Even when we topple dictatorships, inevitably the most radical elements are unleashed, they take advantage of the chaos we wrought and they take power. This is exactly what happened in Iraq.
What if a foreign country started blaming YOU for all the actions of your government? Suppose their remedy to deal with the "radical American" problem was to start bombing OUR country, but instead of killing politicians, military and Supreme Court justices, they killed you and your family? This intervention would cause either or both of these things. First, you'd probably rally behind your current government instead of opposing it because you have now been attacked by a foreign power and a national security emergency engenders solidarity. Secondly, you might take matters into your own hands and seek some modicum of justice for your murdered family members. Terrorism has proved the most effective method of fighting back for a small and weak people against a powerful Nation State.
It is telling that even though our government's policies have provided every motivation for radicalization and terrorist attacks against us, that the threat of Muslim terrorism on American soil is very low. Do you know how many Americans have been killed by Muslim terrorists since 9/11? The answer is 96.
Of course every American death is a tragedy in it's own right, but put this into perspective. Look at how many Americans are killed each year on our highways. How many are killed by homicides. Yet we are so eager to wage endless war against "terrorism", spend trillions of dollars and lose thousands of lives to fight against a threat that is less powerful and less dangerous than nearly any other danger we face on a daily basis?
Robert Pape mentioned in his exhaustive report on suicide terrorism, that fully 50% of all terrorists who committed attacks since 1980 were secular, NOT religious.
The FBI's own reports show that more than 90% of all terrorist attacks committed on American soil from 1980 to 2005 were committed by non-Muslims:
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum
I'm sure you're aware of this, but Neo-con politicians, Israel-first lobbyists, the military industrial complex, and assorted Right-Wing groups benefit greatly from perpetuating a US empire and asserting American "strength" and "greatness" around the globe. They have every incentive for you to continue believing that the entire terrorism problem has to do with the religion of Islam. That is why I don't see websites like Jihad Watch and The Religion of Peace to be trustworthy. You have to be aware of the agenda behind such outlets.
What were the murderers in Bangladesh "blowing back" against when they asked hostages questions about the Koran and then murdered them when they could not answer? You do realize you are making a fool of yourself with all this blame America and the West for the actions of Jihadists?
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 02, 2016, 04:12:07 AM
What were the murderers in Bangladesh "blowing back" against when they asked hostages questions about the Koran and then murdered them when they could not answer? You do realize you are making a fool of yourself with all this blame America and the West for the actions of Jihadists?
Really? That's it? A two-sentence response that contains no facts, no links and no coherent response to anything I said? One of us is making a fool of themselves, but it most certainly isn't me.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 02, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
Really? That's it? A two-sentence response that contains no facts, no links and no coherent response to anything I said? One of us is making a fool of themselves, but it most certainly isn't me.
You were asked a question and ran like a scalded dog, troll.
What
WERE the murderers in Bangladesh "blowing back" against when they slaughtered people for not knowing the Mussie book of toilet paper? Explain it, sonny.
You'll excuse any islamic atrocity. You'll blame America for existing at all. But you'll also not run and hide from somebody like me. ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 02, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
Really? That's it? A two-sentence response that contains no facts, no links and no coherent response to anything I said? One of us is making a fool of themselves, but it most certainly isn't me.
Please read Quiller's response troll.
Quote from: quiller on July 03, 2016, 03:22:59 AM
You were asked a question and ran like a scalded dog, troll.
What WERE the murderers in Bangladesh "blowing back" against when they slaughtered people for not knowing the Mussie book of toilet paper? Explain it, sonny.
You'll excuse any islamic atrocity. You'll blame America for existing at all. But you'll also not run and hide from somebody like me. ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Thanks.
Quote from: quiller on July 03, 2016, 03:22:59 AM
You were asked a question and ran like a scalded dog, troll.
What WERE the murderers in Bangladesh "blowing back" against when they slaughtered people for not knowing the Mussie book of toilet paper? Explain it, sonny.
You'll excuse any islamic atrocity. You'll blame America for existing at all. But you'll also not run and hide from somebody like me. ANSWER THE QUESTION.
I don't know what the motivations were. You didn't provide a link which explains exactly what event you are referencing. But more importantly, I never said that all acts of violence by Muslim extremists were caused by blowback and foreign intervention. I'm well aware that people can be violent and often use religion as a pretext to carry out atrocities.
There is a reason that I cited the work of Robert Pape and studies that have been done about the views and actions of US Muslims. An anecdote is not a sufficient rebuttal to the preponderance of empirical peer-reviewed studies that have been done on the motivations of suicide terrorism.
I NEVER excused any Muslim atrocity. Quite the contrary, I simply judge US-committed atrocities against the Muslim world by the same moral standard that I judge terrorist atrocities committed against us. Consistency.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 03, 2016, 12:19:06 PM
I don't know what the motivations were. You didn't provide a link which explains exactly what event you are referencing. But more importantly, I never said that all acts of violence by Muslim extremists were caused by blowback and foreign intervention. I'm well aware that people can be violent and often use religion as a pretext to carry out atrocities.
There is a reason that I cited the work of Robert Pape and studies that have been done about the views and actions of US Muslims. An anecdote is not a sufficient rebuttal to the preponderance of empirical peer-reviewed studies that have been done on the motivations of suicide terrorism.
I NEVER excused any Muslim atrocity. Quite the contrary, I simply judge US-committed atrocities against the Muslim world by the same moral standard that I judge terrorist atrocities committed against us. Consistency.
You are one dumb ass if you don't know what the question was about. I was very specific in my initial post of the question. You continue to dodge and that will get you dismissed from this board. Quiller called you out and you have now try to distract from your stupidity.
jrodefeld, you have been called out three time now.
Are you a man or a Troll? Chew Toys only last so long on this board.
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 03, 2016, 12:54:47 PM
You are one dumb ass if you don't know what the question was about. I was very specific in my initial post of the question. You continue to dodge and that will get you dismissed from this board. Quiller called you out and you have now try to distract from your stupidity.
I did answer your question. I don't know what the motivations were for the murderers in Bangladesh. If you could provide a link, I could respond more fully. It is entirely possible that those actions had nothing to do with blowback whatsoever. But, like I said, this really has nothing to do with the argument I've been presenting here. You are beating up on a straw man. I never once said that every violent act committed by Muslims was the fault of the United States or foreign occupation. I am objecting to your claim that it is the Muslim religion that is to blame for terrorist attacks against the United States and other, non-Middle East countries. And I am objecting to your views of US Muslims and indeed most Muslims around the world. These stereotypes are refuted again and again by social studies that assess the actual views and actions of most Muslims in relation to other religious and ethnic groups.
Whether you agree with me or not, I have actually cited data, empirical studies and facts to bolster my argument. The trouble is you all have cited an anecdotal incident of violence by particular Muslims in Bangladesh (without links or citations of any kind), and anti-Muslim propaganda sites JihadWatch and TheReligionofPeace.
None of you have yet responded in any real way to the work of Robert Pape, or the empirical studies that have linked to.
Have any of you watched the Robert Pape lecture I posted on this thread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Dd6mtZA5k
Pay special attention to the part of the video that shows actual Muslim terrorists explaining why they are launching attacks against the United States. They spell out their motivations with crystal clarity. It is simply mind-boggling that clear evidence can be staring you in the face but you refuse to accept it. It seems you'd rather run with a narrative that all this terrorism business is the result of the religion of Islam and not any geopolitical events or other explanatory factors.
I'm trying to have a dialog with you all about this very important subject because, frankly, conservatives of your ilk who have bought the neo-con propaganda story hook, line and sinker are putting me, my family and friends in danger.
Quote from: walkstall on July 03, 2016, 01:59:11 PM
jrodefeld, you have been called out three time now.
Are you a man or a Troll? Chew Toys only last so long on this board.
Have some pity, walks. He must be one of those delusional 'Swedes'. sarc :lol: :lol:
Quote from: MACMan on July 03, 2016, 02:26:22 PM
Have some pity, walks. He must be one of those delusional 'Swedes'. sarc :lol: :lol:
Solar and Taxed are the nice one's. I am working my way towards a new.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lidtime.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Flamborghini-concept-car.jpg&hash=d28f496170a9ec2ce575c18ee4202144bba3e2a1)
Okay, let me put aside the issue of Islam and the motivations for suicide terrorism for a minute and articulate what I feel would be a sane and reasonable foreign policy. I'd like to see where you agree and where you disagree.
In the first place, we should begin the process of closing down foreign military bases around the world. We should cease intervening into the foreign affairs of other nations. We should allow other nations to defend themselves. Germany should defend itself, as should Japan. We should announce to the world that we will be adhering to the founders advise to be friends with all nations that want to be friends with us, but avoid entangling alliances.
We should end the "special relationship" the United States has had with the country of Israel, allow them their sovereignty and cease taking any official side in the Israel/Palestinian conflict. We should cease using drones to bomb foreign nations, unless we are attacked by a foreign nation and our Congress passes a declaration of war.
We should cut our defense budget by hundreds of billions of dollars, while still maintaining a military that is strong enough to defend against any potential threat to our national security. But our military ought to be reserved for defensive purposes only.
As for fighting terrorism, it should be viewed primarily as a criminal act and treated as such. Therefore it is primarily a job for law enforcement. If we ever face the prospect of a large scale terrorist attack like 9/11, we have the right and obligation to respond militarily. However, we should issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal or use a limited number of special forces to surgically target, capture or kill those directly responsible for the attack and immediately proceed to vacate from the foreign nation that the perpetrators of such an attack happen to reside. No nation building, no (or as few as possible) civilian deaths and disruptions to life of the country where the terrorists operated from.
And of course, a more streamlined and efficient intelligence gathering unit would be more nimble and able to act on intelligence of an impending attack on the scale of 9/11 so attacks like that, whatever the motivations of the terrorists behind them, can be intercepted before they take place.
What we should never do is make statements like we are declaring war on "Islam". We should never sacrifice our civil liberties, gut the fourth and second amendments and turn our lives upside down because we allow ourselves to be terrorized.
The less intervention in other nations, the less blowback and unintended consequences we will see.
Our foreign policy should be one of neutrality and humbleness. We should be strong and able to prevent and respond to any potential threat to our national security but we shouldn't feel the need to "project" strength around the world, which only engenders resentment from other nations. We should set an example for others to emulate through free markets, personal achievement and prosperity.
I'd be interested in hearing your ideas about maintaining a foreign policy of non-intervention, "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all, entangling alliances with none".
Regardless of your personal feelings about Islam, is it really worth the price both in terms of money spent and lives lost to pursue our current foreign policy, particularly with regards to our interventions into the middle east?
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 03, 2016, 09:58:23 PM
Okay, let me put aside the issue of Islam and the motivations for suicide terrorism for a minute
Got his ass beat earlier, changes subject now. Riiiiiiight......
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 03, 2016, 12:19:06 PM
I don't know what the motivations were. You didn't provide a link which explains exactly what event you are referencing. But more importantly, I never said that all acts of violence by Muslim extremists were caused by blowback and foreign intervention. I'm well aware that people can be violent and often use religion as a pretext to carry out atrocities.
There is a reason that I cited the work of Robert Pape and studies that have been done about the views and actions of US Muslims. An anecdote is not a sufficient rebuttal to the preponderance of empirical peer-reviewed studies that have been done on the motivations of suicide terrorism.
I NEVER excused any Muslim atrocity. Quite the contrary, I simply judge US-committed atrocities against the Muslim world by the same moral standard that I judge terrorist atrocities committed against us. Consistency.
Here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/03/attackers-in-dhaka-separated-muslims-from-non-muslims-hostages/
does not tell what the motives were, but we can take an educated guess. Maybe you can tell pape this is where the real threat is and how others see the muslim religion. Stop blaming the victims.
Quote from: taxed on June 24, 2016, 07:36:23 AM
Interesting. So in the majority of Muslim nations, there are Christian churches, etc?
Bumped for the dodger, jrodefeld.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 03, 2016, 02:08:32 PM
None of you have yet responded in any real way to the work of Robert Pape, or the empirical studies that have linked to.
Have any of you watched the Robert Pape lecture I posted on this thread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Dd6mtZA5k
Wrong....I have..... and Add me to the list of people who have called you and your one trick Pony, Pape, out, you never answered
MY question concerning lack of terrorist attacks or acts of terror directed at the Former Soviet Union or present day Russia despite the INTERFERENCE of that country in Islamic States, not to mention their current total aggression against the Muslim Chechin's.
Second, but perhaps most importantly, I totally disproved the myth of the USA's 'creating' of Osama Bin Laudin as a viable terrorist in AFghanistan or any other country....if Pape still persists in this nonsense then he is a total fraud.
Once again PAPE is a RESEARCHER he is NOT an investigator, He only Parrots what INVESTIGATORS have submitted through their reports or perhaps a random interview of some Govt security maven here and there.....these conclusions he reaches are therefore THIRD PARTY and can be determined subjective.
Of course since he has an obvious agenda then his whole treatise can be considered hogwash.
Quote Knowing the difference between facts and opinions
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a
person's feelings that cannot be proven. Opinions can be based on facts or emotions and
sometimes they are meant to deliberately mislead others. Therefore,it is important to be
aware of the author's purpose and choice of language.
http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/lrc/studyskills/factsandopinions.pdf
While you choose to worship at the altar of Pape, we choose not to. :rolleyes:
Quote from: s3779m on July 04, 2016, 04:36:14 AM
Here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/03/attackers-in-dhaka-separated-muslims-from-non-muslims-hostages/
does not tell what the motives were, but we can take an educated guess. Maybe you can tell pape this is where the real threat is and how others see the muslim religion. Stop blaming the victims.
Nope, it doesn't say what the motives were for this specific attack. I don't know if Pape or others have written about this specific attack, but I will defer to those who are qualified to explain how this attack fits into the broader geopolitical strategy of ISIS. To be clear, I am NOT "blaming the victims". These radical terrorist groups are barbaric and we don't need to defend them. What we do need to do, if we care about reducing the number of terrorist attacks against Americans, is recognize the primary motivation for recruitment and radicalization. Which, as I've explained, is mostly due to anger over foreign military intervention into their countries.
Now, terrorism is an immoral strategy because it is predicated upon targeting innocent civilians instead of soldiers. So regardless of how sympathetic I may be to the anger Muslims in the middle east feel about the atrocities our government has committed against them, I can never condone the willful targeting of civilians. Now, if Muslims who were angry about our military occupation started to attack American soldiers who were occupying their lands, then I would have no problem with it. If Muslims started to shoot at our planes as they were flying over their airspace uninvited with military intent, or if they shot down a drone, this would also be perfectly fine. After all, we would all want to take up arms and shoot back against a foreign nation who was occupying the United States of America. You think if China occupied Texas uninvited, imposed un-American laws on people who lived there and threatened people who didn't comply, that Texans wouldn't start fighting back? Damn right they would.
So, Muslims who are similarly fighting back against our soldiers who are illegitimately occupying Middle Eastern nations are doing nothing wrong. But the minute you start targeting involved civilians, you are committing aggression and this is what terrorists do.
At the same time, if you want to reduce the number of crimes that are committed, removing the incentive makes a lot of sense. If you keep kicking a hornet's nest and you get stung, there is a clear cause-and-effect relationship there. If you don't want to be stung in the future you ought to cease kicking hornet's nests.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on July 05, 2016, 07:44:24 AM
Wrong....I have..... and Add me to the list of people who have called you and your one trick Pony, Pape, out, you never answered MY question concerning lack of terrorist attacks or acts of terror directed at the Former Soviet Union or present day Russia despite the INTERFERENCE of that country in Islamic States, not to mention their current total aggression against the Muslim Chechin's.
Second, but perhaps most importantly, I totally disproved the myth of the USA's 'creating' of Osama Bin Laudin as a viable terrorist in AFghanistan or any other country....if Pape still persists in this nonsense then he is a total fraud.
Once again PAPE is a RESEARCHER he is NOT an investigator, He only Parrots what INVESTIGATORS have submitted through their reports or perhaps a random interview of some Govt security maven here and there.....these conclusions he reaches are therefore THIRD PARTY and can be determined subjective.
Of course since he has an obvious agenda then his whole treatise can be considered hogwash.
Peruse through this site at your leisure:
http://cpostdata.uchicago.edu/search_new.php
This is the University of Chicago's Suicide Attack Database where you can look through all the documented terrorist attacks that Pape and his collaborators have assembled. You can freely verify the source documents and examine the methodology. Pape has gone to great lengths to be as transparent as possible and subject his research to peer review and revision based on input from all experts in the field.
It is not obvious that Pape has an agenda that would compromise the integrity of his work. Perhaps you could spell out exactly what his agenda is?
Did you seriously claim that Russia and the old Soviet Union never faced a threat from Islamic terrorism? This is simply factually untrue.
To start, here is an entry from the Wikipedia page:
QuoteIslamic terrorism is considered a major threat to the security of the nation[9] with most terrorist activity taking place in Chechnya and Dagestan. Since October 2007, the Caucasus Emirate has withdrawn its nationalist goals of creating a sovereign state in Chechnya. It has since fully adopted the Islamic fundamentalist ideology of Salafist-takfiri jihadism [10] whose enemies not only include Russia and its citizens, but all non-Muslims, including the local Sufi population, and foreign countries such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Israel.[citation needed] They have made numerous references in their speeches that they have declared war on "anyone who wages war against Muslims." The Russian government has banned seventeen terrorist organizations; the Highest Military Majlisul Shura of the United Forces of the Mujahedeen of the Caucasus, the Congress of the Peoples of Ichkeria and Daghestan, Al Qaeda, Asbat an-Ansar, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Al-Jamaa al-Islami, Jamaat-e-Islami, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Taliban, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Society of Social Reforms (Jamiat al-Islah al-Ijtimai), Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage (Jamiat Ihya at-Turaz al-Islami), al-Haramain Foundation, Junj ash-Sham (Army of the Great Syria), and the Islamic Jihad - jamaat of the mujahedeen.[11] Many Muslims and human rights activists have criticized the government's counter-terrorism operations, saying they unfairly target Muslims.
Here is another example:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/30/terrorist-attacks-russia-winter-olympics-near/
And yet another example:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/russia-fears-islamic-terror-blowback-over-syria-amid-sinai-crash
"
As evidence grows that a bomb may have downed a Russian passenger jet over Egypt, the Kremlin is focused on countering the threat of terrorism at home from sympathizers of Islamic State.
Officials insist they were prepared for the risk of terrorist reprisals after President Vladimir Putin ordered air strikes against militants in Syria."
This is what libertarians like myself and researchers like Pape have been saying. Foreign military intervention creates blowback. People don't like foreign powers interfering in their right to self determination and they hit back until the foreign occupier leaves.
Frankly, I don't know if you actually think before you speak (or "type" in this case). A quick Google search could have enlightened you about how serious the Russian government takes the threat of Islamic terrorism. The Bloomberg article above is even more revealing, in that the Russians knew and even anticipated a rise in Islamic terrorist attacks against them as a result of their intervention into Syria, exposing the obvious fact that foreign intervention is the primary factor motivating Islamic terrorists.
Quote from: tac on July 05, 2016, 08:33:44 AM
http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/lrc/studyskills/factsandopinions.pdf
While you choose to worship at the altar of Pape, we choose not to. :rolleyes:
Pape isn't the only one expressing these views. However, his work is the most authoritative, scientifically rigorous and important. What I've expressed isn't a non-consequential opinion such as "I like the color blue". The question at hand is what motivates Islamic terrorists. You all have claimed that Islam as a religion is the cause. So you seek out obscure passages from the Quran and paint all Muslims with a broad brush. I have claimed that the primary motivation for Islamic terrorism is foreign occupation. I have claimed that most Muslims are not extremists and don't hold the views you attribute to them. And I've claimed that if we changed our foreign policy and stopped intervening into the middle east, terrorist attacks against us would vanish or be greatly reduced.
This is not a matter of opinion. This is an empirical matter and we have to look to something concrete to figure out which one of these positions is correct. The facts of the matter are that virtually all empirical work on the subject has come to the conclusion that my argument is the correct one and that yours is the incorrect one.
What you,Pape and the rest are preaching is Hate America Bullshit. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 05, 2016, 06:22:49 PM
Pape isn't the only one expressing these views. However, his work is the most authoritative, scientifically rigorous and important. What I've expressed isn't a non-consequential opinion such as "I like the color blue". The question at hand is what motivates Islamic terrorists. You all have claimed that Islam as a religion is the cause. So you seek out obscure passages from the Quran and paint all Muslims with a broad brush. I have claimed that the primary motivation for Islamic terrorism is foreign occupation. I have claimed that most Muslims are not extremists and don't hold the views you attribute to them. And I've claimed that if we changed our foreign policy and stopped intervening into the middle east, terrorist attacks against us would vanish or be greatly reduced.
This is not a matter of opinion. This is an empirical matter and we have to look to something concrete to figure out which one of these positions is correct. The facts of the matter are that virtually all empirical work on the subject has come to the conclusion that my argument is the correct one and that yours is the incorrect one.
Is it safe for people in the media to draw pictures of Mohammad?
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 05, 2016, 06:13:07 PM
Peruse through this site at your leisure:
http://cpostdata.uchicago.edu/search_new.php
It is not obvious that Pape has an agenda that would compromise the integrity of his work. Perhaps you could spell out exactly what his agenda is?
Did you seriously claim that Russia and the old Soviet Union never faced a threat from Islamic terrorism? This is simply factually untrue.
Pape's agenda is abundantly clear, BLAME AMERICA for terrorism....the same nonsense the left is trying to perpetrate, blame it all on Bush. I reiterate, his unabashed lie re OBL's support from the USA is factually not true and almost on the order of ENEMY PROPAGANDA....from the Islamofacists themselves. He has Zero credibility due to his position...CASE CLOSED.
I never said that Russia was NOT subject to terrorist attacks, I said that ISIS, PLO, HAMAS, Al Q'ieda etc know they get nothing by staging such attacks against Russia, due to the brutality of their response. You probably don;t know this coz you likely haven't left Mommy's basement, but when you get out into the real world overseas NOBODY(Islamic terrorists) FKS WITH RUSSIAN CITIZENS, you do and your family will get a package containing your balls....for a while, a short while it was that way when Bush launched his war on terror.
Most of the attacks you are referencing are likely committed by Chechin's....much different that your Al Q'Ida and ISIS type of Islamic terrorists.... these people are more on the order of freedom fighters.
You (or your Hero Pape) miss the point, there is no wholesale blowback from Russia/Former USSR's meddling in Islamic State affairs. Their main terrorist problem is the Chechin "independance" movement.
Quote from: tac on July 05, 2016, 06:35:57 PM
What you,Pape and the rest are preaching is Hate America Bullshit. :rolleyes:
Sticking to your talking points I see. You should probably realize that by parroting the mantras that are spoon-fed to you by conservative talk-radio (among other sources) you are really doing the bidding of neo-con think tanks, military contractors and very ANTI-American lobbying groups who all profit from war.
Quote from: taxed on July 05, 2016, 06:49:02 PM
Is it safe for people in the media to draw pictures of Mohammad?
In many cases, no. There are admittedly a very small number of fundamentalist Muslims who would react very badly to something like that. I've already made it very clear that there are people out there who use religion to justify committing atrocities against their fellow man. I never denied any of that so I don't know what you are trying to prove. Of course, 98% of Muslims would never justify using violence against the author no matter how offended they were so we are still talking about a very small number of people.
Even if I were to stipulate that there are plenty of internal problems with Islam that would exist no matter what our foreign policy is, that still does not justify our foreign policy of aggression against the Muslim world! It wouldn't make it any less understandable that many Muslims feel that the West has been waging an unprovoked war against THEM for decades.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 06, 2016, 06:53:22 PM
In many cases, no. There are admittedly a very small number of fundamentalist Muslims who would react very badly to something like that. I've already made it very clear that there are people out there who use religion to justify committing atrocities against their fellow man. I never denied any of that so I don't know what you are trying to prove. Of course, 98% of Muslims would never justify using violence against the author no matter how offended they were so we are still talking about a very small number of people.
Even if I were to stipulate that there are plenty of internal problems with Islam that would exist no matter what our foreign policy is, that still does not justify our foreign policy of aggression against the Muslim world! It wouldn't make it any less understandable that many Muslims feel that the West has been waging an unprovoked war against THEM for decades.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-rLHpEHrXcWg%2FTskKIQGKmOI%2FAAAAAAAABgQ%2FCkY1WGbvazs%2Fs1600%2Fyawn.png&hash=10803910a8bc5d726467c968646451244f5eaec4)
Sooooo only 2% of the Muslims are doing all that killing. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on July 05, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
Pape's agenda is abundantly clear, BLAME AMERICA for terrorism....the same nonsense the left is trying to perpetrate, blame it all on Bush. I reiterate, his unabashed lie re OBL's support from the USA is factually not true and almost on the order of ENEMY PROPAGANDA....from the Islamofacists themselves. He has Zero credibility due to his position...CASE CLOSED.
I never said that Russia was NOT subject to terrorist attacks, I said that ISIS, PLO, HAMAS, Al Q'ieda etc know they get nothing by staging such attacks against Russia, due to the brutality of their response. You probably don;t know this coz you likely haven't left Mommy's basement, but when you get out into the real world overseas NOBODY(Islamic terrorists) FKS WITH RUSSIAN CITIZENS, you do and your family will get a package containing your balls....for a while, a short while it was that way when Bush launched his war on terror.
Most of the attacks you are referencing are likely committed by Chechin's....much different that your Al Q'Ida and ISIS type of Islamic terrorists.... these people are more on the order of freedom fighters.
You (or your Hero Pape) miss the point, there is no wholesale blowback from Russia/Former USSR's meddling in Islamic State affairs. Their main terrorist problem is the Chechin "independance" movement.
Why was it that Russian government officials are so concerned about the potential for blowback due to Russia intervening into Syria? As per the Bloomberg article I linked to earlier:
"As evidence grows that a bomb may have downed a Russian passenger jet over Egypt, the Kremlin is focused on countering the threat of terrorism at home from sympathizers of Islamic State.
Officials insist they were prepared for the risk of terrorist reprisals after President Vladimir Putin ordered air strikes against militants in Syria."http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/russia-fears-islamic-terror-blowback-over-syria-amid-sinai-crash
The truth is that Russia has not been intervening into the Middle East anywhere close to the frequency that the United States has over the past twenty five years or so. And they aren't considered an ally of the United States in the "War on Terror" so it is predictable that they would have faced fewer terrorist attacks by groups like Al Qaeda.
Robert Pape has no agenda to "blame America". His research isn't even about the United States in particular. His focus has been on compiling and documenting all suicide attacks against every country in the world. His goal is to learn what the motivations are for suicide terrorists in general. It just happens to be the case that his research revealed that Al Qaeda and other terrorists who have attacked Americans are motivated by anger over our foreign policy. He never set out to prove that "America" was at fault for terrorism. In fact, he started his research believing the conventional tale about how it is religion that motivates most Islamic terrorists. His studies revealed the opposite of what he expected to find.
What is it about you that you cannot understand how our military interventions into the Middle East have been grossly immoral when judged on their own merits? Why can't you put yourself in the shoes of someone who happened to be born in Iraq or Afghanistan? Wouldn't you grow to resent the United States when all you knew about them was that they were crippling your economy, interfering with your government and dropping bombs from the sky?
This is so plainly common-sense that it boggles the mind why you cannot grasp it.
Putting this issue aside for a moment, do you think it has been worth the cost in money and lives lost to wage this "war on terror"? Terrorism, even with our current foreign policy that makes us less safe, is a very insignificant threat to most Americans. Would you have us re-invade Iraq and stay there for another decade or two? Would you like to "see if the sand glows" like Ted Cruz wants?
How do you reconcile the advocacy of aggression into foreign lands with any standard of morality? As I stated earlier, our drone program kills mostly civilians. As many as 90% of those killed are completely innocent, and even the ones that are "suspected" to be terrorists haven't been proven to be terrorists in a court.
We all should object to the atrocities committed by Muslim terrorists, but we should also object to the atrocities our government commits against the Muslim world.
Here is Pape again explaining it to you:
QuoteThough no one wants to talk about it, 9/11 is still hurting America. That terrible day inflicted a wound of public fear that easily reopens with the smallest provocation, and it continues to bleed the United States of money, lives, and goodwill around the world. Indeed, America's response to its fear has, in turn, made Americans less safe and has inspired more threats and attacks.
In the decade since 9/11, the United States has conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan), deployed thousands of Special Forces troops to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, etc.), imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse, and waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries. Yet Americans still seem strangely mystified as to why some Muslims might be angry about this situation.
In a narrow sense, America is safer today than on 9/11. There has not been another attack on the same scale. U.S. defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved.
But in a broader sense, America has become perilously unsafe. Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. From 1980 to 2003, there were 343 suicide attacks around the world, and at most 10 percent were anti-American inspired. Since 2004, there have been more than 2,000, over 91 percent against U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries.
Yes, these attacks are overseas and mostly focused on military and diplomatic targets. So too, however, were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month. So why is nobody connecting them?
U.S. military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, or lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, or lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism.
No. Something else is creating the mismatch between America's effort and the results.
For nearly a decade, Americans have been waging a long war against terrorism without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill them. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, this was perfectly explicable — the need to destroy al Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan was too urgent to await sober analyses of root causes.
But, the absence of public debate did not stop the great need to know or, perhaps better to say, to "understand" the events of that terrible day. In the years before 9/11, few Americans gave much thought to what drives terrorism — a subject long relegated to the fringes of the media, government, and universities. And few were willing to wait for new studies, the collection of facts, and the dispassionate assessment of alternative causes. Terrorism produces fear and anger, and these emotions are not patient.
A simple narrative was readily available, and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Because the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill Americans. Within weeks after the 9/11 attacks, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, "Why do they hate us?" and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of "who we are, not what we do." As President George W. Bush said in his first address to Congress after the 9/11 attacks: "They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
Thus was unleashed the "war on terror."
The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked and encourage war against Iraq. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: To transform Arab societies — with Western political institutions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism.
This narrative had a powerful effect on support for the invasion of Iraq. Opinion polls show that for years before the invasion, more than 90 percent of the U.S. public believed that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But this belief alone was not enough to push significant numbers to support war.
What really changed after 9/11 was the fear that anti-American Muslims desperately wanted to kill Americans and so any risk that such extremists would get weapons of mass destruction suddenly seemed too great. Although few Americans feared Islam before 9/11, by the spring of 2003, a near majority — 49 percent — strongly perceived that half or more of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims were deeply anti-American, and a similar fraction also believed that Islam itself promoted violence. No wonder there was little demand by congressional committees or the public at large for a detailed review of intelligence on Iraq's WMD prior to the invasion.
The goal of transforming Arab societies into true Western democracies had powerful effects on U.S. commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq. Constitutions had to be written; elections held; national armies built; entire economies restructured. Traditional barriers against women had to be torn down. Most important, all these changes also required domestic security, which meant maintaining approximately 150,000 U.S. and coalition ground troops in Iraq for many years and increasing the number of U.S. and Western troops in Afghanistan each year from 2003 on.
Put differently, adopting the goal of transforming Muslim countries is what created the long-term military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the United States would almost surely have sought to create a stable order after toppling the regimes in these countries in any case. However, in both, America's plans quickly went far beyond merely changing leaders or ruling parties; only by creating Western-style democracies in the Muslim world could Americans defeat terrorism once and for all.
There's just one problem: We now know that this narrative is not true.
New research provides strong evidence that suicide terrorism such as that of 9/11 is particularly sensitive to foreign military occupation, and not Islamic fundamentalism or any ideology independent of this crucial circumstance. Although this pattern began to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s, a wealth of new data presents a powerful picture.
More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research that we conducted at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically — from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans.
Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.
Some have disputed the causal link between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism, pointing out that some occupations by foreign powers have not resulted in suicide bombings — for example, critics often cite post-World War II Japan and Germany. Our research provides sufficient evidence to address these criticisms by outlining the two factors that determine the likelihood of suicide terrorism being employed against an occupying force.
The first factor is social distance between the occupier and occupied. The wider the social distance, the more the occupied community may fear losing its way of life. Although other differences may matter, research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied.
Religious difference matters not because some religions are predisposed to suicide attacks. Indeed, there are religious differences even in purely secular suicide attack campaigns, such as the LTTE (Hindu) against the Sinhalese (Buddhists).
Rather, religious difference matters because it enables terrorist leaders to claim that the occupier is motivated by a religious agenda that can scare both secular and religious members of a local community — this is why Osama bin Laden never misses an opportunity to describe U.S. occupiers as "crusaders" motivated by a Christian agenda to convert Muslims, steal their resources, and change the local population's way of life.
The second factor is prior rebellion. Suicide terrorism is typically a strategy of last resort, often used by weak actors when other, non-suicidal methods of resistance to occupation fail. This is why we see suicide attack campaigns so often evolve from ordinary terrorist or guerrilla campaigns, as in the cases of Israel and Palestine, the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, or the LTTE in Sri Lanka.
One of the most important findings from our research is that empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism. In Iraq, the surge's success was not the result of increased U.S. military control of Anbar province, but the empowerment of Sunni tribes, commonly called the Anbar Awakening, which enabled Iraqis to provide for their own security. On the other hand, taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism. In Afghanistan, U.S. and Western forces began to exert more control over the country's Pashtun regions starting in early 2006, and suicide attacks dramatically escalated from this point on.
The research suggests that U.S. interests would be better served through a policy of offshore balancing. Some scholars have taken issue with this approach, arguing that keeping boots on the ground in South Asia is essential for U.S. national security. Proponents of this strategy fail to realize how U.S. ground forces often inadvertently produce more anti-American terrorists than they kill. In 2000, before the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, there were 20 suicide attacks around the world, and only one (against the USS Cole) was directed against Americans. In the last 12 months, by comparison, 300 suicide attacks have occurred, and over 270 were anti-American. We simply must face the reality that, no matter how well-intentioned, the current war on terror is not serving U.S. interests.
The United States has been great in large part because it respects understanding and discussion of important ideas and concepts, and because it is free to change course. Intelligent decisions require putting all the facts before us and considering new approaches. The first step is recognizing that occupations in the Muslim world don't make Americans any safer — in fact, they are at the heart of the problem.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/18/its-the-occupation-stupid/
As far as Bin Laden being assisted by the CIA in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was occupying Afghanistan, I don't think I cited Pape on that subject. But your case against him being aided in this way is not credible.
Let me quote a source to reveal some history:
QuotePrime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders."1
In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:
"With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad."
The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:
"In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166, ...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies – a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels."
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:
"Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete sociopolitical ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow."
You really should read the whole article:
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/chuss10.html
The claims that Osama bin Laden never really benefited from all this aid and support during the 1980s is not credible. It is plainly obvious to anyone who knows history that the United States greatly aided the radicalization of Muslims in the middle east during the 1980s. This in turn came back to bite us as the Mujahideen transformed into groups like Al Qaeda a decade later. Not ALL of the former Mujahideen joined Al Qaeda of course, but there is a great deal of overlap.
Quote from: walkstall on July 06, 2016, 07:29:51 PM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-rLHpEHrXcWg%2FTskKIQGKmOI%2FAAAAAAAABgQ%2FCkY1WGbvazs%2Fs1600%2Fyawn.png&hash=10803910a8bc5d726467c968646451244f5eaec4)
Sooooo only 2% of the Muslims are doing all that killing. :rolleyes:
There are 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world. If all of them believed it was their religious duty to murder anyone who draws a picture of Mohammed or otherwise insults there religion there would be murders against authors every single day.
How many TOTAL Muslim attacks outside of the Middle East can you cite that are attributable exclusively to free speech "crimes"?
How much killing is the United States government doing around the world every year?
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 06, 2016, 06:53:22 PM
In many cases, no. There are admittedly a very small number of fundamentalist Muslims who would react very badly to something like that. I've already made it very clear that there are people out there who use religion to justify committing atrocities against their fellow man. I never denied any of that so I don't know what you are trying to prove. Of course, 98% of Muslims would never justify using violence against the author no matter how offended they were so we are still talking about a very small number of people.
Even if I were to stipulate that there are plenty of internal problems with Islam that would exist no matter what our foreign policy is, that still does not justify our foreign policy of aggression against the Muslim world! It wouldn't make it any less understandable that many Muslims feel that the West has been waging an unprovoked war against THEM for decades.
Your myopic view of the world borders on pathological, or outright psychoneurotic, but suffice it to say, it's pure bull shit and a distraction from the real issues facing the nation at the moment, that being, Marxist destruction of the US.
Screw the Muscums, no one really gives a fuck what they want or think, because they have a serious problem with radicals in their political system, which reflects on each and everyone of the scumballs.
So here's the thing, this forum is here for Conservatives only, though you've been afforded a platform to make your case, and obviously you've failed miserably in making converts to your religion.
Which is why I'm giving you an ultimatum. Either start posting in the political forum on current events, or say thanks, and goodbye, because you are done hijacking the distraction forum.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 06, 2016, 07:39:40 PM
There are 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world. If all of them believed it was their religious duty to murder anyone who draws a picture of Mohammed or otherwise insults there religion there would be murders against authors every single day.
How many TOTAL Muslim attacks outside of the Middle East can you cite that are attributable exclusively to free speech "crimes"?
How much killing is the United States government doing around the world every year?
So it's ok to do all that kill inside the Middle East. :lol:
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 06, 2016, 06:53:22 PM
In many cases, no. There are admittedly a very small number of fundamentalist Muslims who would react very badly to something like that. I've already made it very clear that there are people out there who use religion to justify committing atrocities against their fellow man. I never denied any of that so I don't know what you are trying to prove. Of course, 98% of Muslims would never justify using violence against the author no matter how offended they were so we are still talking about a very small number of people.
Even if I were to stipulate that there are plenty of internal problems with Islam that would exist no matter what our foreign policy is, that still does not justify our foreign policy of aggression against the Muslim world! It wouldn't make it any less understandable that many Muslims feel that the West has been waging an unprovoked war against THEM for decades.
Like, what percentage?
Quote from: Solar on July 06, 2016, 07:40:46 PM
Your myopic view of the world borders on pathological, or outright psychoneurotic, but suffice it to say, it's pure bull shit and a distraction from the real issues facing the nation at the moment, that being, Marxist destruction of the US.
Screw the Muscums, no one really gives a fuck what they want or think, because they have a serious problem with radicals in their political system, which reflects on each and everyone of the scumballs.
So here's the thing, this forum is here for Conservatives only, though you've been afforded a platform to make your case, and obviously you've failed miserably in making converts to your religion.
Which is why I'm giving you an ultimatum. Either start posting in the political forum on current events, or say thanks, and goodbye, because you are done hijacking the distraction forum.
I'll post in the political forum, but I'm not "hijacking" anything. I'm confining myself to a single thread and people can participate or not.
I know this is a forum for conservatives but I think most people don't want to confine themselves to a group of like-minded individuals, never speaking to those that disagree with them. This thread here has been focused on foreign policy, but on other issues we'd probably have plenty to agree about. Someone described himself as a "constitutional conservative", and as a libertarian I'd probably have plenty to agree with if someone legitimately wants to reduce the State to its constitutional functions. I'd like to abolish the State entirely, but we'd be moving in the direction of more liberty so we can be allies.
The reason I'm pushing so hard on this foreign policy subject is that, as Randolph Borne said, "war is the health of the State". Killing people is the worst thing that governments do and the greatest expansions of State power occur during wartime. So, if you are a constitutional conservative, you have to make a choice. Either you favor Empire and avoidable wars of aggression or you favor limited government. Because you can't have both.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 06, 2016, 08:35:06 PM
I'll post in the political forum, but I'm not "hijacking" anything. I'm confining myself to a single thread and people can participate or not.
I know this is a forum for conservatives but I think most people don't want to confine themselves to a group of like-minded individuals, never speaking to those that disagree with them. This thread here has been focused on foreign policy, but on other issues we'd probably have plenty to agree about. Someone described himself as a "constitutional conservative", and as a libertarian I'd probably have plenty to agree with if someone legitimately wants to reduce the State to its constitutional functions. I'd like to abolish the State entirely, but we'd be moving in the direction of more liberty so we can be allies.
The reason I'm pushing so hard on this foreign policy subject is that, as Randolph Borne said, "war is the health of the State". Killing people is the worst thing that governments do and the greatest expansions of State power occur during wartime. So, if you are a constitutional conservative, you have to make a choice. Either you favor Empire and avoidable wars of aggression or you favor limited government. Because you can't have both.
People are participating, but have you noticed that none are falling for your b.s. Many situations have been posted which prove your theory wrong and you ignore them and keep on the same talking points. It gets boring. One suggestion,look for another forum that will embrace what you are teaching, facts or no facts, there are places which live to blame the victims. Here's the hint again, in the search bar write "liberal".
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 06, 2016, 06:42:59 PM
Sticking to your talking points I see.
That Super-Glue holding you to the wall is leaking out again and showing.
QuoteYou should probably realize that by parroting the mantras that are spoon-fed to you by conservative talk-radio (among other sources) you are really doing the bidding of neo-con think tanks, military contractors and very ANTI-American lobbying groups who all profit from war.
:rolleyes: At this point you over-achieved in self-parody but were too stupid to see it.
At least send in your $2 to get the new leftist agitprop, comrade!
First: what is a "neo-con," and what makes you think anyone here actually is one, knows one, or even listened to one? And for those like myself who don't watch TV or listen to talk radio, just WHOSE think tanks and military contractors am I beholden to?
Name those anti-American groups. If you make these charges, back them up.
Oh. That's right. You're just another troll and this is just another election cycle.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 06, 2016, 07:34:53 PM
Putting this issue aside for a moment, do you think it has been worth the cost in money and lives lost to wage this "war on terror"? Terrorism, even with our current foreign policy that makes us less safe, is a very insignificant threat to most Americans. Would you have us re-invade Iraq and stay there for another decade or two? Would you like to "see if the sand glows" like Ted Cruz wants?
As far as Bin Laden being assisted by the CIA in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was occupying Afghanistan, I don't think I cited Pape on that subject. But your case against him being aided in this way is not credible.
Complete bullshit, the USA CREATED ISLAMIC TERRORISM..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
you
STILL don't get it do ya muffins? YOU CAN CREATE SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS!
I'm not disputing the fact that the USA supported AFGHANI FREEDOM FIGHTERS in their GUERILLA WAR against the USSR occupation. However I do dispute the MYTH that the USA "created" Radical ISlamic Terrorists and especially Osma Bin Laudin's terror group Al Qieda.
The very articles you cite prove me right and you....and Pape wrong.
AGAIN.....HOW CAN YOU CREATE SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTED?.....THe AFGHANI resistance against Soviet occupation started on day one of the invasion......as I already cited, rival tribes broke up into factions which was engineered by the Soviet KGB 'ground work' before the first tank rolled across the border....it was PRE PLANNED, those tribes and ethnic subdivisions that were ont he outs got their asses whipped....old story old pattern. They had NO CHOICE but to fight and use the traditional method of the weak...Guerilla warfare...Guerilla warfare and Terrorism (Those that have actually fought Guerillas know this) have very similar tactics.
SO I am right and you (And Pape) are wrong....THE TERRORIST/GUERILLA WAR IN AFGHANISTAN WAS INITIATED BY THE SOVIET UNION....OBL's appearance and support in this matter later was a direct RESULT of the Soviet Invasion....nothing to do with AMERICAN FORCES.
Our subsequent support of MUHAJADEEN fighters did not begin until late in the 1980's....primarily this was supplying MUHAJADEEN with shoulder fired Stinger missiles to knock down the Soviet Helicopters that were doing so much damage. THe Guerilla war had been in effect for 5, 6 or 7 years at that point. Again, there is no evidence, either by this slanted article or anyone else that the USA financed, aided or assisted OBL in any way. OBL HIMSELF SAYS WE DID NOT, HE REFUSED ANY AIDE FROM THE USA because he hated us for supporting the SAUDI's.
It was OBL who created Al Qieda primarily bringing in foreign fighters from around the globe, no doubt certain tribes or certain factions or individual fighters "signed on" with OBL but these fighters were mainly concerned with fighting RIVAL TRIBES or ETHNICITIES in age old fueds, such fighters had low level importance...cannon fodder, most of OBL's Al Qieda heiarchy were SAUDI or other than AFGHANI's.....proved by his top lieutenants and by the make up of the 9/11 Hijackers.
Besides, how is providing aide "Military intervention"? We did not set boots on the ground, we did not send troops, (perhaps a few American CIA advisors) WE ALSO TREATED MUHAJADEEN IN US HOSPITALS....I suppose we shouldn;t have done that either.
https://allthingsforeignblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/1986-afghan-mujahideen-in-the-united-states/
You fail, you have failed at every turn, your sources are not credible and they have no EVIDENCE other than their own slanted speculation and conjecture...this is NOT SCIENTIFIC in the least....it is bullshit, pure and simple...thats what you get with researchers who have no INVESTIGATIVE ABILITY or training......Bullshit.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 06, 2016, 08:35:06 PM
I'll post in the political forum, but I'm not "hijacking" anything. I'm confining myself to a single thread and people can participate or not.
I know this is a forum for conservatives but I think most people don't want to confine themselves to a group of like-minded individuals, never speaking to those that disagree with them. This thread here has been focused on foreign policy, but on other issues we'd probably have plenty to agree about. Someone described himself as a "constitutional conservative", and as a libertarian I'd probably have plenty to agree with if someone legitimately wants to reduce the State to its constitutional functions. I'd like to abolish the State entirely, but we'd be moving in the direction of more liberty so we can be allies.
The reason I'm pushing so hard on this foreign policy subject is that, as Randolph Borne said, "war is the health of the State". Killing people is the worst thing that governments do and the greatest expansions of State power occur during wartime. So, if you are a constitutional conservative, you have to make a choice. Either you favor Empire and avoidable wars of aggression or you favor limited government. Because you can't have both.
Take a timeout, this was not up for discussion.
Quote from: s3779m on July 07, 2016, 12:23:46 AM
People are participating, but have you noticed that none are falling for your b.s. Many situations have been posted which prove your theory wrong and you ignore them and keep on the same talking points. It gets boring. One suggestion,look for another forum that will embrace what you are teaching, facts or no facts, there are places which live to blame the victims. Here's the hint again, in the search bar write "liberal".
That fool is a legend in his own mind.
Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on July 08, 2016, 12:51:40 PM
That fool is a legend in his own mind.
I assume you are speaking of jerodefeld?
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 08, 2016, 01:13:30 PM
I assume you are speaking of jerodefeld?
I sure hope so. :lol:
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 08, 2016, 01:13:30 PM
I assume you are speaking of jerodefeld?
Moz' def. I thought it was obvious. jerodfeld = windbag. He sucks the air out of the room with interminably long posts, then replaces the air with stinque! Vomiting mountains of abstruse verbiage, and managing to say absolutely nothing worth reading. He is the literary equivalent of an annoying rash.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenaturalpathnewsletter.com%2Fimages%2Fturmeric-cream-helps-psoriasis.jpg&hash=21decdb0e6bd48496bdc9fe56dc4c75baf55bac3)
Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on July 12, 2016, 08:39:01 AM
Moz' def. I thought it was obvious. jerodfeld = windbag. He sucks the air out of the room with interminably long posts, then replaces the air with stinque! Vomiting mountains of abstruse verbiage, and managing to say absolutely nothing worth reading. He is the literary equivalent of an annoying rash.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenaturalpathnewsletter.com%2Fimages%2Fturmeric-cream-helps-psoriasis.jpg&hash=21decdb0e6bd48496bdc9fe56dc4c75baf55bac3)
I'm rather impressed by your eloquence...Thank You for that.
So, Solar I guess suspended my account for a few days so I didn't post anything. So I will respectfully ask mods whether I can respond to this thread or, if necessary, I can create a new, broader thread in the main "Political Discussion and Debate" section. It's up to you.
With that said, and until I am notified one way or another, I'd like to say a few things.
It is not that important to me ultimately what your personal view is of Islam. If you want to stereotype and paint all Muslims with a broad brush, then I think you are wrong but you're personal ignorance on the matter doesn't really impact my life.
Where I draw the line is when your anger towards Islam drives you to support politicians and State policies that are immoral, abridge MY civil liberties and makes me and my family less safe. It was not explicitly stated, but I was given the impression that some of you favored the Iraq War, and our foreign military interventions into the middle east by and large over the past two decades, if not more. If anything, you're criticism is that we haven't been ruthless enough in killing "the Muslims". We need to show them we mean business, not placate them like some pansy liberals we need not mention. "The surge worked until Obama withdrew troops from Iraq" and all that stupid conservative propaganda. I know the playbook well.
So, what is your idea of what our foreign policy should be? I've told you mine so I'd like to hear your views.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 12, 2016, 06:10:42 PM
So, Solar I guess suspended my account for a few days so I didn't post anything. So I will respectfully ask mods whether I can respond to this thread or, if necessary, I can create a new, broader thread in the main "Political Discussion and Debate" section. It's up to you.
With that said, and until I am notified one way or another, I'd like to say a few things.
It is not that important to me ultimately what your personal view is of Islam. If you want to stereotype and paint all Muslims with a broad brush, then I think you are wrong but you're personal ignorance on the matter doesn't really impact my life.
Where I draw the line is when your anger towards Islam drives you to support politicians and State policies that are immoral, abridge MY civil liberties and makes me and my family less safe. It was not explicitly stated, but I was given the impression that some of you favored the Iraq War, and our foreign military interventions into the middle east by and large over the past two decades, if not more. If anything, you're criticism is that we haven't been ruthless enough in killing "the Muslims". We need to show them we mean business, not placate them like some pansy liberals we need not mention. "The surge worked until Obama withdrew troops from Iraq" and all that stupid conservative propaganda. I know the playbook well.
So, what is your idea of what our foreign policy should be? I've told you mine so I'd like to hear your views.
How thick are you?
This is the final warning, next time, you'll simply be disappeared.
Quote from: Solar on July 06, 2016, 07:40:46 PM
Your myopic view of the world borders on pathological, or outright psychoneurotic, but suffice it to say, it's pure bull shit and a distraction from the real issues facing the nation at the moment, that being, Marxist destruction of the US.
Screw the Muscums, no one really gives a fuck what they want or think, because they have a serious problem with radicals in their political system, which reflects on each and everyone of the scumballs.
So here's the thing, this forum is here for Conservatives only, though you've been afforded a platform to make your case, and obviously you've failed miserably in making converts to your religion.
Which is why I'm giving you an ultimatum. Either start posting in the political forum on current events, or say thanks, and goodbye, because you are done hijacking the distraction forum.
Quote from: jrodefeld on July 12, 2016, 06:10:42 PM
So, Solar I guess suspended my account for a few days so I didn't post anything. So I will respectfully ask mods whether I can respond to this thread or, if necessary, I can create a new, broader thread in the main "Political Discussion and Debate" section. It's up to you.
With that said, and until I am notified one way or another, I'd like to say a few things.
It is not that important to me ultimately what your personal view is of Islam. If you want to stereotype and paint all Muslims with a broad brush, then I think you are wrong but you're personal ignorance on the matter doesn't really impact my life.
Where I draw the line is when your anger towards Islam drives you to support politicians and State policies that are immoral, abridge MY civil liberties and makes me and my family less safe. It was not explicitly stated, but I was given the impression that some of you favored the Iraq War, and our foreign military interventions into the middle east by and large over the past two decades, if not more. If anything, you're criticism is that we haven't been ruthless enough in killing "the Muslims". We need to show them we mean business, not placate them like some pansy liberals we need not mention. "The surge worked until Obama withdrew troops from Iraq" and all that stupid conservative propaganda. I know the playbook well.
So, what is your idea of what our foreign policy should be? I've told you mine so I'd like to hear your views.
God, what a pompous ignoramus. Why are you even posting here, jdrodentfool? Obviously you are here only to teach, and not to learn. Good luck with that attitude. BTW, I have forgotten more about muzz than you will ever know - my father was full-blooded Arab who fled from muzzieland as fast as he could because he was smart enough to figure out what you avoid like Superman avoids Kryptonite - Islam is exactly what Salmon Rushdie says it is - Satanic Verses. But your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance, so you will remain both, likely to your dying day, as the Twelvers/Salafists laugh and laugh and laugh at the stupid infidels who both defend and enable them in their efforts to annihilate and exterminate every single person on the face of the Earth who stands in opposition to their efforts to bring the Twelfth Caliphate. Dhimmitude - define it. Taqqiya - define it. Salafist - define it. Wahabi- define it. Twelver - define it. How much of the Quran have you actually read? I'm guessing about zero- since you are clearly an expert in only one field - opinionology - which is the use of one fact-devoid, highly biased subjective opinion to validate another. You are not even on the same level as a complete ignoramus on the Quran, Islam or jihaddism, because you would have to eradicate all of the erroneous nonsense that you believe to be the truth about those things, before you would even be on the same level as a complete ignoramus.
Feel free to start another thread (if you have the stones, which I doubt) and I will be happy to eviscerate each and every argument that you would care to put forth to support your lunacy and self-loathing love affair with the illusory nonsense that you believe embodies Islam.
I DARE YOU, troll. Show some guts and stand up for what you believe. (cricket sounds). I'm guessing that you are just another vicious cowardly ignoramus who will run away whining and spewing screed vomit as you scurry back to Huffpo, Daily Cause or whatever other carnival of mutual rape you call a Forum.
Oh, and just remember - if you are an atheist (which is very likely) the muzz are coming for you FIRST, even before Jews, Christians or any other deist or theist. See, they consider atheists to be worthy of only one thing - extermination. They will at least give a deist or theist of another belief a chance to convert. They just slaughter the atheists without hesitation or mercy.
Here's some beginner reading on your journey from the land of self-assured, absolute ignorance on Islam, "The Closed Circle" by David Pryce Jones . He is a Westerner who grew up in muzz nations so he actually knows what he is talking about - unlike you and 99% of all other muzz-loving fools I have encountered in the last ten or fifteen years.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on July 12, 2016, 03:46:35 PM
I'm rather impressed by your eloquence...Thank You for that.
Yes, me too..... :smile:
Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on July 13, 2016, 07:49:33 AM
God, what a pompous ignoramus. Why are you even posting here, jdrodentfool? Obviously you are here only to teach, and not to learn. Good luck with that attitude. BTW, I have forgotten more about muzz than you will ever know - my father was full-blooded Arab who fled from muzzieland as fast as he could because he was smart enough to figure out what you avoid like Superman avoids Kryptonite - Islam is exactly what Salmon Rushdie says it is - Satanic Verses. But your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance, so you will remain both, likely to your dying day, as the Twelvers/Salafists laugh and laugh and laugh at the stupid infidels who both defend and enable them in their efforts to annihilate and exterminate every single person on the face of the Earth who stands in opposition to their efforts to bring the Twelfth Caliphate. Dhimmitude - define it. Taqqiya - define it. Salafist - define it. Wahabi- define it. Twelver - define it. How much of the Quran have you actually read? I'm guessing about zero- since you are clearly an expert in only one field - opinionology - which is the use of one fact-devoid, highly biased subjective opinion to validate another. You are not even on the same level as a complete ignoramus on the Quran, Islam or jihaddism, because you would have to eradicate all of the erroneous nonsense that you believe to be the truth about those things, before you would even be on the same level as a complete ignoramus.
Feel free to start another thread (if you have the stones, which I doubt) and I will be happy to eviscerate each and every argument that you would care to put forth to support your lunacy and self-loathing love affair with the illusory nonsense that you believe embodies Islam.
I DARE YOU, troll. Show some guts and stand up for what you believe. (cricket sounds). I'm guessing that you are just another vicious cowardly ignoramus who will run away whining and spewing screed vomit as you scurry back to Huffpo, Daily Cause or whatever other carnival of mutual rape you call a Forum.
Oh, and just remember - if you are an atheist (which is very likely) the muzz are coming for you FIRST, even before Jews, Christians or any other deist or theist. See, they consider atheists to be worthy of only one thing - extermination. They will at least give a deist or theist of another belief a chance to convert. They just slaughter the atheists without hesitation or mercy.
Here's some beginner reading on your journey from the land of self-assured, absolute ignorance on Islam, "The Closed Circle" by David Pryce Jones . He is a Westerner who grew up in muzz nations so he actually knows what he is talking about - unlike you and 99% of all other muzz-loving fools I have encountered in the last ten or fifteen years.
QuoteBTW, I have forgotten more about muzz than you will ever know
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchicktech.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2FREALITY_SLAP_L1.jpg&hash=c79f8ee962a5e16174bab833e508e31047fad19f)