22 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSmall bunch of ideologically primed extremists who see all of western capaitalism as their problem, and at the center of it all the USA the most technologically advanced and empowered empire of all time armed to the teeth with real WMD and you go figure the options they have to try and overthrow their perceived oppressor. Do two buildings equal the tonnes of bombs let loose over their backyard during the 90's. Is it reasonable for them not have declared war across a well defined front and attempted to engage in organized battle?
I think they have a well-honed vision of the suffering of others -- it's what drives them.
Did they have any legitimate grievances that they possibly saw no possible way of resolving using more legitimate avenues of engagement?
At the end of the day it was the version of war that they chose as appropriate to wage and unfortunately it seems that in the world that we live in these days, the idea of their being such a thing as an innocent civilian no longer holds in many quarters anymore and the leverage that can be brokered by collateral damage seems to be a strategy actively followed by both sides.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by kmax87There we go. Well said.
Small bunch of ideologically primed extremists who see all of western capaitalism as their problem, and at the center of it all the USA the most technologically advanced and empowered empire of all time armed to the teeth with real WMD and you go figure the options they have to try and overthrow their perceived oppressor. Do two buildings equal the tonnes of ...[text shortened]... at can be brokered by collateral damage seems to be a strategy actively followed by both sides.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by kmax87Good points.
Small bunch of ideologically primed extremists who see all of western capaitalism as their problem, and at the center of it all the USA the most technologically advanced and empowered empire of all time armed to the teeth with real WMD and you go figure the options they have to try and overthrow their perceived oppressor. Do two buildings equal the tonnes of ...[text shortened]... at can be brokered by collateral damage seems to be a strategy actively followed by both sides.
The question that needs answering is what their problem is- ie Israel/US troops in Saudi etc. or is it as many seem to want to believe more ideological and the aim of a global caliphate.
I don't know, but it is something that I'm suprised is not more widely discussed.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by london nickI think it has been discussed to death, and there is no reasoning with them. They want Istael "off the map." I have no pro or con feeling toward Jews, but I do be;ieve every nation has a right to exist.
Good points.
The question that needs answering is what their problem is- ie Israel/US troops in Saudi etc. or is it as many seem to want to believe more ideological and the aim of a global caliphate.
I don't know, but it is something that I'm suprised is not more widely discussed.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydI know that is a widespread feeling across the Islamic world (and beyond), but I've not heard that that is the express aim of Al Quaida.
I think it has been discussed to death, and there is no reasoning with them. They want Istael "off the map." I have no pro or con feeling toward Jews, but I do be;ieve every nation has a right to exist.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by kmax87i agree completely. if we would have practiced a noninterventionalist foreign policy then a lot of these wars could have been avoided and i dont think 911 would have happened had we not been in saudi arabia already. the osama bin laddens of the world cant recruit based on their religion alone, it's our prescence that enables them to recruit. we played right into the terrorists' hands by invading iraq.
Small bunch of ideologically primed extremists who see all of western capaitalism as their problem, and at the center of it all the USA the most technologically advanced and empowered empire of all time armed to the teeth with real WMD and you go figure the options they have to try and overthrow their perceived oppressor. Do two buildings equal the tonnes of ...[text shortened]... at can be brokered by collateral damage seems to be a strategy actively followed by both sides.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydIf a larger and much more powerful nation decided to give the entire eastern seaboard of the United States back to the native Americans, would you feel that nation has a right to exist?
I think it has been discussed to death, and there is no reasoning with them. They want Istael "off the map." I have no pro or con feeling toward Jews, but I do be;ieve every nation has a right to exist.
Maybe so, but would everyone else?
What if the east coast was some sort of holy place to both parties?
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by forkedknightYou have a point but if both sides think they have a right and can not live amongst each other than what do YOU do.
If a larger and much more powerful nation decided to give the entire eastern seaboard of the United States back to the native Americans, would you feel that nation has a right to exist?
Maybe so, but would everyone else?
What if the east coast was some sort of holy place to both parties?
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by london nickWell if you believe the whole wahabi school is a 'lets reclaim our former glory and win back everything that we lost since the crusades', then I suppose all the neo cons are correct and there is no middle ground and the only way forward is to not give an inch, but I suspect its that very same stoic authoritarianism that is at the heart of all the trouble.
Good points.
The question that needs answering is what their problem is- ie Israel/US troops in Saudi etc. or is it as many seem to want to believe more ideological and the aim of a global caliphate.
I don't know, but it is something that I'm suprised is not more widely discussed.
At the end of the day there were periods of cooperation in the middle east at the height of the crusades when peace was possible only because there was a level of respect on both sides and an acknowledgment that neither side could ever wipe the other one off the face of the earth.
Who knows with enough peace and enough economic welfare experienced to close the parity gap on both sides maybe that respect could re emerge. It all depends on whether brokers of peace are languaged as being weak ineffectual appeasers like Chamberlain in the face of Ahmadinejad's 'Hitler' and are not listened to.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by kmax87You say that Islamic terrorists wage asymmetrical warfare (in other words, terrorism) against the West, out of necessity. So why do Islamic terrorists target places like Canada, Spain, India, Bali, Thailand and the Philippines, etc., which have no foreign troops in Islamic countries?
Small bunch of ideologically primed extremists who see all of western capaitalism as their problem, and at the center of it all the USA the most technologically advanced and empowered empire of all time armed to the teeth with real WMD and you go figure the options they have to try and overthrow their perceived oppressor. Do two buildings equal the tonnes of ...[text shortened]... at can be brokered by collateral damage seems to be a strategy actively followed by both sides.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663276/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11171/indias_terrorism_struggle.html
http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220082,00.html#
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDyO37Z304ow51G9iRXaZmP_uzpA
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9365/
I think it's because Islamic terrorists (hold onto your chair) are evil. Furthermore, I think people who admire the Islamists' struggle (by any means necessary), are apologists for evil.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by london nickBin Laden's original complaint was that the Saudis chose "infidels" to guard Saudi Arabia against Hussein instead of the mujahadeen, I believe.
I know that is a widespread feeling across the Islamic world (and beyond), but I've not heard that that is the express aim of Al Quaida.