Al Qaeda in 2 sentences

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tom
"That's the important difference to be understood. "


Why is that important ?

Al Qeada is just a bunch or cowards incapable of fighting like men. Why would anyone give a sh1t what they think about anything ?

I don't think Frackal is just talking about the ones who actually strap explosives to themselves and blow up a market, so unless your plan is to kill every single person in the Middle East, I think it IS important to understand why an organization like Al Qaeda can actually gain some kind of popular support there.

This isn't a damn action movie, long term solutions NEVER come about just because you've killed enough people. Pro-war folks love to drag out the line that violence has solved a lot of major problems in history, but it's really only half true. WWII came about because, while WWI saw a nice application of violence sufficient to stop Germany for a time, the NON-violent part of the solution was very poorly carried out, probably by people who thought you like do, and thus we had another nice little war a few years later. WWII saw a lasting peace among the participants because once the shooting was done, the situation was hashed out in a reasonable way that worked for everyone.

Even if you think we can't end violence in the Middle East by changing our policies there, you should realize that once the violence is done, we'll need to understand the root of the problems there if we want a lasting peace that doesn't require a massive military presence until the end of time.

I'm not "pro-war". This discussion is about Al Qeada, not the entire Middle East, and not even other "terrorist" groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

I don't consider Al Qeada to be warriors, they are criminals, and cowardly ones at that. I'm not interested in their opinion of "our" policies for any reason other than if it helps us capture them.

And those of you in this thread who want to talk about our "policies" in such a veiled manner, why don't you come out and say what you really mean ?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Because then we can better decide whether those policies are in our national best interest.

:thumbsup:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tom
"That's the important difference to be understood. "


Why is that important ?

Al Qeada is just a bunch or cowards incapable of fighting like men. Why would anyone give a sh1t what they think about anything ?

I don't think Frackal is just talking about the ones who actually strap explosives to themselves and blow up a market, so unless your plan is to kill every single person in the Middle East, I think it IS important to understand why an organization like Al Qaeda can actually gain some kind of popular support there.

This isn't a damn action movie, long term solutions NEVER come about just because you've killed enough people. Pro-war folks love to drag out the line that violence has solved a lot of major problems in history, but it's really only half true. WWII came about because, while WWI saw a nice application of violence sufficient to stop Germany for a time, the NON-violent part of the solution was very poorly carried out, probably by people who thought you like do, and thus we had another nice little war a few years later. WWII saw a lasting peace among the participants because once the shooting was done, the situation was hashed out in a reasonable way that worked for everyone.

Even if you think we can't end violence in the Middle East by changing our policies there, you should realize that once the violence is done, we'll need to understand the root of the problems there if we want a lasting peace that doesn't require a massive military presence until the end of time.

I'm not "pro-war". This discussion is about Al Qeada, not the entire Middle East, and not even other "terrorist" groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

I don't consider Al Qeada to be warriors, they are criminals, and cowardly ones at that. I'm not interested in their opinion of "our" policies for any reason other than if it helps us capture them.

And those of you in this thread who want to talk about our "policies" in such a veiled manner, why don't you come out and say what you really mean ?

You may not consider them warriors, but they do. Im not sure I would call them cowards either. How does a real man fight? You understand as long as we stand for freedom, they will hate us with every fiber of their being...right? You cant sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss things.

I am curcious what you would call a brave man? One who sits and negotiates?

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tom
"That's the important difference to be understood. "


Why is that important ?

Al Qeada is just a bunch or cowards incapable of fighting like men. Why would anyone give a sh1t what they think about anything ?

I don't think Frackal is just talking about the ones who actually strap explosives to themselves and blow up a market, so unless your plan is to kill every single person in the Middle East, I think it IS important to understand why an organization like Al Qaeda can actually gain some kind of popular support there.

This isn't a damn action movie, long term solutions NEVER come about just because you've killed enough people. Pro-war folks love to drag out the line that violence has solved a lot of major problems in history, but it's really only half true. WWII came about because, while WWI saw a nice application of violence sufficient to stop Germany for a time, the NON-violent part of the solution was very poorly carried out, probably by people who thought you like do, and thus we had another nice little war a few years later. WWII saw a lasting peace among the participants because once the shooting was done, the situation was hashed out in a reasonable way that worked for everyone.

Even if you think we can't end violence in the Middle East by changing our policies there, you should realize that once the violence is done, we'll need to understand the root of the problems there if we want a lasting peace that doesn't require a massive military presence until the end of time.

I'm not "pro-war". This discussion is about Al Qeada, not the entire Middle East, and not even other "terrorist" groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

I don't consider Al Qeada to be warriors, they are criminals, and cowardly ones at that. I'm not interested in their opinion of "our" policies for any reason other than if it helps us capture them.

And those of you in this thread who want to talk about our "policies" in such a veiled manner, why don't you come out and say what you really mean ?

Dude, shut the ****** up. I am saying exactly what I mean. I listed the policies that piss off muslims either already in this thread or in another thread. I don't know what the hell you're trying to imply that I'm implying, but knock it off. It's pissing me off and you're probably wrong anyway. Come right out and say what you think I'm saying because I sure as hell don't know what you're talking about.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1


You may not consider them warriors, but they do. Im not sure I would call them cowards either. How does a real man fight? You understand as long as we stand for freedom, they will hate us with every fiber of their being...right? You cant sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss things.

I am curcious what you would call a brave man? One who sits and negotiates?

Since when has american stoo for freedom? Our foreign policy sure gives no credence to this, where are you getting it from?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1


You may not consider them warriors, but they do. Im not sure I would call them cowards either. How does a real man fight? You understand as long as we stand for freedom, they will hate us with every fiber of their being...right? You cant sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss things.

I am curcious what you would call a brave man? One who sits and negotiates?

Since when has american stoo for freedom? Our foreign policy sure gives no credence to this, where are you getting it from?

um what? I dont even know how to answer this...are you thinking we spread and promote what...communism? We stifle freedom of choice? Or are you flaming...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1


You may not consider them warriors, but they do. Im not sure I would call them cowards either. How does a real man fight? You understand as long as we stand for freedom, they will hate us with every fiber of their being...right? You cant sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss things.

I am curcious what you would call a brave man? One who sits and negotiates?

Since when has american stoo for freedom? Our foreign policy sure gives no credence to this, where are you getting it from?

um what? I dont even know how to answer this...are you thinking we spread and promote what...communism? We stifle freedom of choice? Or are you flaming...

We support and spread whatever system is in american economic interests. Interestingly, but not unsurprisingly, liberty, democracy and national self-determination are not aften qualities we support in these pursuits. Since WW2 the us has supported fascists (greece and spain, latin america, among others), communists (cambodia), fanatical muslims (afghanistan), and other dictatorships of all sorts. We have overthrow and opposed nationalist and democratic movements one after another. We have spent decades training terrorists that have wrecked havoc over much of latin america. We have soundly criticized and scorned other democracies for not doing as we tell them and instead doing what their citizens demand of their governments (old europe, turkey, etc) and praised countries that act in overwhelming opposition of its people (italy, australia, and many more).

Please keep in mind that democracy is not about electing the person who tells you what to do, its about choosing the person who will do what you want done.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1


You may not consider them warriors, but they do. Im not sure I would call them cowards either. How does a real man fight? You understand as long as we stand for freedom, they will hate us with every fiber of their being...right? You cant sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss things.

I am curcious what you would call a brave man? One who sits and negotiates?

Since when has american stoo for freedom? Our foreign policy sure gives no credence to this, where are you getting it from?

um what? I dont even know how to answer this...are you thinking we spread and promote what...communism? We stifle freedom of choice? Or are you flaming...

We support and spread whatever system is in american economic interests. Interestingly, but not unsurprisingly, liberty, democracy and national self-determination are not aften qualities we support in these pursuits. Since WW2 the us has supported fascists (greece and spain, latin america, among others), communists (cambodia), fanatical muslims (afghanistan), and other dictatorships of all sorts. We have overthrow and opposed nationalist and democratic movements one after another. We have spent decades training terrorists that have wrecked havoc over much of latin america. We have soundly criticized and scorned other democracies for not doing as we tell them and instead doing what their citizens demand of their governments (old europe, turkey, etc) and praised countries that act in overwhelming opposition of its people (italy, australia, and many more).

Please keep in mind that democracy is not about electing the person who tells you what to do, its about choosing the person who will do what you want done.

I'll buy that...but whats so wrong with that? Fine with me...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1


You may not consider them warriors, but they do. Im not sure I would call them cowards either. How does a real man fight? You understand as long as we stand for freedom, they will hate us with every fiber of their being...right? You cant sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss things.

I am curcious what you would call a brave man? One who sits and negotiates?

Since when has american stoo for freedom? Our foreign policy sure gives no credence to this, where are you getting it from?

um what? I dont even know how to answer this...are you thinking we spread and promote what...communism? We stifle freedom of choice? Or are you flaming...

We support and spread whatever system is in american economic interests. Interestingly, but not unsurprisingly, liberty, democracy and national self-determination are not aften qualities we support in these pursuits. Since WW2 the us has supported fascists (greece and spain, latin america, among others), communists (cambodia), fanatical muslims (afghanistan), and other dictatorships of all sorts. We have overthrow and opposed nationalist and democratic movements one after another. We have spent decades training terrorists that have wrecked havoc over much of latin america. We have soundly criticized and scorned other democracies for not doing as we tell them and instead doing what their citizens demand of their governments (old europe, turkey, etc) and praised countries that act in overwhelming opposition of its people (italy, australia, and many more).

Please keep in mind that democracy is not about electing the person who tells you what to do, its about choosing the person who will do what you want done.

I'll buy that...but whats so wrong with that? Fine with me...

So where in there has american supported democracy or been a beacon for freedom and liberty, other than that the US is the only place where we will tolerate democracy to occur?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tom
"That's the important difference to be understood. "


Why is that important ?

Al Qeada is just a bunch or cowards incapable of fighting like men. Why would anyone give a sh1t what they think about anything ?

I don't think Frackal is just talking about the ones who actually strap explosives to themselves and blow up a market, so unless your plan is to kill every single person in the Middle East, I think it IS important to understand why an organization like Al Qaeda can actually gain some kind of popular support there.

This isn't a damn action movie, long term solutions NEVER come about just because you've killed enough people. Pro-war folks love to drag out the line that violence has solved a lot of major problems in history, but it's really only half true. WWII came about because, while WWI saw a nice application of violence sufficient to stop Germany for a time, the NON-violent part of the solution was very poorly carried out, probably by people who thought you like do, and thus we had another nice little war a few years later. WWII saw a lasting peace among the participants because once the shooting was done, the situation was hashed out in a reasonable way that worked for everyone.

Even if you think we can't end violence in the Middle East by changing our policies there, you should realize that once the violence is done, we'll need to understand the root of the problems there if we want a lasting peace that doesn't require a massive military presence until the end of time.

I'm not "pro-war". This discussion is about Al Qeada, not the entire Middle East, and not even other "terrorist" groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

I don't consider Al Qeada to be warriors, they are criminals, and cowardly ones at that. I'm not interested in their opinion of "our" policies for any reason other than if it helps us capture them.

And those of you in this thread who want to talk about our "policies" in such a veiled manner, why don't you come out and say what you really mean ?

Dude, shut the ****** up. I am saying exactly what I mean. I listed the policies that piss off muslims either already in this thread or in another thread. I don't know what the hell you're trying to imply that I'm implying, but knock it off. It's pissing me off and you're probably wrong anyway. Come right out and say what you think I'm saying because I sure as hell don't know what you're talking about.

You sure didn't list them in this thread, unless you think saying Russia/Chechnya and India/Kashmir are "policies".

If you do, as an American I don't see either of those issues as my business. But I certainly hope the Russians never negotiate with the people who killed all those school children. If that pisses off Muslims, which I don't think it does, since most Muslims probably find it abhorrent what they did, too bad.

My opinion is this whole radical Islam as a threat is blown way out of proportion, probably for political gain. It's a problem, but it isn't that big of a deal.

We certainly don't need to consider what Al Qeada thinks, when deciding what our policies are. That's like asking the roaches for permission to clean up the kitchen.

If there are policies of the West that you think are wrong, fine, express that view. But don't expect me to weigh what I think of those policies, based on if Al Qeada likes it or not.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1


You may not consider them warriors, but they do. Im not sure I would call them cowards either. How does a real man fight? You understand as long as we stand for freedom, they will hate us with every fiber of their being...right? You cant sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss things.

I am curcious what you would call a brave man? One who sits and negotiates?

Since when has american stoo for freedom? Our foreign policy sure gives no credence to this, where are you getting it from?

um what? I dont even know how to answer this...are you thinking we spread and promote what...communism? We stifle freedom of choice? Or are you flaming...

We support and spread whatever system is in american economic interests. Interestingly, but not unsurprisingly, liberty, democracy and national self-determination are not aften qualities we support in these pursuits. Since WW2 the us has supported fascists (greece and spain, latin america, among others), communists (cambodia), fanatical muslims (afghanistan), and other dictatorships of all sorts. We have overthrow and opposed nationalist and democratic movements one after another. We have spent decades training terrorists that have wrecked havoc over much of latin america. We have soundly criticized and scorned other democracies for not doing as we tell them and instead doing what their citizens demand of their governments (old europe, turkey, etc) and praised countries that act in overwhelming opposition of its people (italy, australia, and many more).

Please keep in mind that democracy is not about electing the person who tells you what to do, its about choosing the person who will do what you want done.

I'll buy that...but whats so wrong with that? Fine with me...

So where in there has american supported democracy or been a beacon for freedom and liberty, other than that the US is the only place where we will tolerate democracy to occur?

USSR and Iraq, for two...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1


You may not consider them warriors, but they do. Im not sure I would call them cowards either. How does a real man fight? You understand as long as we stand for freedom, they will hate us with every fiber of their being...right? You cant sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss things.

I am curcious what you would call a brave man? One who sits and negotiates?

Since when has american stoo for freedom? Our foreign policy sure gives no credence to this, where are you getting it from?

um what? I dont even know how to answer this...are you thinking we spread and promote what...communism? We stifle freedom of choice? Or are you flaming...

We support and spread whatever system is in american economic interests. Interestingly, but not unsurprisingly, liberty, democracy and national self-determination are not aften qualities we support in these pursuits. Since WW2 the us has supported fascists (greece and spain, latin america, among others), communists (cambodia), fanatical muslims (afghanistan), and other dictatorships of all sorts. We have overthrow and opposed nationalist and democratic movements one after another. We have spent decades training terrorists that have wrecked havoc over much of latin america. We have soundly criticized and scorned other democracies for not doing as we tell them and instead doing what their citizens demand of their governments (old europe, turkey, etc) and praised countries that act in overwhelming opposition of its people (italy, australia, and many more).

Please keep in mind that democracy is not about electing the person who tells you what to do, its about choosing the person who will do what you want done.

I'll buy that...but whats so wrong with that? Fine with me...

So where in there has american supported democracy or been a beacon for freedom and liberty, other than that the US is the only place where we will tolerate democracy to occur?

USSR and Iraq, for two...

So is that why democracy has taken hold in russia, ukraine, belarus, central asia, iraq, etc? Please. Our objectives can be seen with which countries you see us most associated with, russia (not a democracy), and the central asian states (not democracies). Those countries from the soviet block that became democracies looked more to their fellow europeans than america. Desire to join the EU is probably the strongest democratizing agent in europe over the last decade or more. As long as they had open markets, our government is fine.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1


You may not consider them warriors, but they do. Im not sure I would call them cowards either. How does a real man fight? You understand as long as we stand for freedom, they will hate us with every fiber of their being...right? You cant sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss things.

I am curcious what you would call a brave man? One who sits and negotiates?

Since when has american stoo for freedom? Our foreign policy sure gives no credence to this, where are you getting it from?

um what? I dont even know how to answer this...are you thinking we spread and promote what...communism? We stifle freedom of choice? Or are you flaming...

We support and spread whatever system is in american economic interests. Interestingly, but not unsurprisingly, liberty, democracy and national self-determination are not aften qualities we support in these pursuits. Since WW2 the us has supported fascists (greece and spain, latin america, among others), communists (cambodia), fanatical muslims (afghanistan), and other dictatorships of all sorts. We have overthrow and opposed nationalist and democratic movements one after another. We have spent decades training terrorists that have wrecked havoc over much of latin america. We have soundly criticized and scorned other democracies for not doing as we tell them and instead doing what their citizens demand of their governments (old europe, turkey, etc) and praised countries that act in overwhelming opposition of its people (italy, australia, and many more).

Please keep in mind that democracy is not about electing the person who tells you what to do, its about choosing the person who will do what you want done.

I'll buy that...but whats so wrong with that? Fine with me...

So where in there has american supported democracy or been a beacon for freedom and liberty, other than that the US is the only place where we will tolerate democracy to occur?

USSR and Iraq, for two...

So is that why democracy has taken hold in russia, ukraine, belarus, central asia, iraq, etc? Please. Our objectives can be seen with which countries you see us most associated with, russia (not a democracy), and the central asian states (not democracies). Those countries from the soviet block that became democracies looked more to their fellow europeans than america. Desire to join the EU is probably the strongest democratizing agent in europe over the last decade or more. As long as they had open markets, our government is fine.

So you don't think the USA played any role in the break up of the Soviet Union ? It was all Europe ?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1


You may not consider them warriors, but they do. Im not sure I would call them cowards either. How does a real man fight? You understand as long as we stand for freedom, they will hate us with every fiber of their being...right? You cant sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss things.

I am curcious what you would call a brave man? One who sits and negotiates?

Since when has american stoo for freedom? Our foreign policy sure gives no credence to this, where are you getting it from?

um what? I dont even know how to answer this...are you thinking we spread and promote what...communism? We stifle freedom of choice? Or are you flaming...

We support and spread whatever system is in american economic interests. Interestingly, but not unsurprisingly, liberty, democracy and national self-determination are not aften qualities we support in these pursuits. Since WW2 the us has supported fascists (greece and spain, latin america, among others), communists (cambodia), fanatical muslims (afghanistan), and other dictatorships of all sorts. We have overthrow and opposed nationalist and democratic movements one after another. We have spent decades training terrorists that have wrecked havoc over much of latin america. We have soundly criticized and scorned other democracies for not doing as we tell them and instead doing what their citizens demand of their governments (old europe, turkey, etc) and praised countries that act in overwhelming opposition of its people (italy, australia, and many more).

Please keep in mind that democracy is not about electing the person who tells you what to do, its about choosing the person who will do what you want done.

I'll buy that...but whats so wrong with that? Fine with me...

So where in there has american supported democracy or been a beacon for freedom and liberty, other than that the US is the only place where we will tolerate democracy to occur?

USSR and Iraq, for two...

So is that why democracy has taken hold in russia, ukraine, belarus, central asia, iraq, etc? Please. Our objectives can be seen with which countries you see us most associated with, russia (not a democracy), and the central asian states (not democracies). Those countries from the soviet block that became democracies looked more to their fellow europeans than america. Desire to join the EU is probably the strongest democratizing agent in europe over the last decade or more. As long as they had open markets, our government is fine.

Well OK...if thats how you see it. Russia is a republic, largely because of us. But whatever...central asian states...Iraq? Isnt a democracy? What would you call the new government?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Tom



So you don't think the USA played any role in the break up of the Soviet Union ? It was all Europe ?

The ussr collapsed on it own, no western nation made a very substantial impact on its result. Glasnost and perestroika did the soviet union did the soviet union in almost signle handedly. The arms buildup by reagan certainly had no effect, the soviets didn't try to match it and they didn't care. With a nuclear armed state, you are unassaultable by armies, navies or airforces. They simply aren't relevant.

European nations, however, did have a much stronger impact on what those countries became. Eastern Europeans states such as poland, czech republic and hungary looked to the parliaments of germany, france, and england, rather than the senate and president of the united states.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Well OK...if thats how you see it. Russia is a republic, largely because of us. But whatever...central asian states...Iraq? Isnt a democracy? What would you call the new government?

Russian is not a democracy, and noone considers it to be a democracy. Freedom house ratings The central asian states, since i have clear gone over your head, would be the former soviet republics of khazakstan, turkmenistan, uzbekistan, tajikistan, and kyrgistan. Last i checked, none of them had achieved anything near democracy. In fact, they are among the least free states in the world.

Iraq is also not a democracy. You really can't have a democracy when for all purposes you don't even have a state. Freedom House Ratings for Iraq.

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: Frackal
The argument about whether they "hate" us for our freedoms or whether they "hate us" for our policies continues so perhaps I can offer some resolution.


They:

- Do "hate" what we consider to be freedoms and way of life.

- But, are ATTACKING us for our policies in the Islamic world. (which includes Russia/Chechnya, India/Kashmir, etc)

That's the important difference to be understood.

Al Qaeda is nothing more than a mercenary group created by the CIA to stop the Soviet occuption of Afghanistan many years ago as you will all recall.

After that work was done, Al Qaeda was deployed again as mercenaries to guard the drug trade, ...it's entire cycle from the planting of the poppys, the drug processing, to the loading of it onto various transports headed to Europe and the USA mainly.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: Frackal
The argument about whether they "hate" us for our freedoms or whether they "hate us" for our policies continues so perhaps I can offer some resolution.


They:

- Do "hate" what we consider to be freedoms and way of life.

- But, are ATTACKING us for our policies in the Islamic world. (which includes Russia/Chechnya, India/Kashmir, etc)

That's the important difference to be understood.

Al Qaeda is nothing more than a mercenary group created by the CIA to stop the Soviet occuption of Afghanistan many years ago as you will all recall.

After that work was done, Al Qaeda was deployed again as mercenaries to guard the drug trade, ...it's entire cycle from the planting of the poppys, the drug processing, to the loading of it onto various transports headed to Europe and the USA mainly.

They were not a mercenary group, although the situation is similar on the surface. A mercenary group is a neutral group that takes on a target for the duration that they were paid. They have no political interest in the situation. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, was a group with a cause, that was paid by another group with a related cause to do what they could not do; specifically involve themselves directly in afghanistan. Once our goal was done, did not mean theirs was. We were the next logical target, and this time, instead of beig financed by a superpower with an objective, they are being financed by drug runners both of which have the mutual interest in not having the US in afghanistan.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tom
"That's the important difference to be understood. "


Why is that important ?

Al Qeada is just a bunch or cowards incapable of fighting like men. Why would anyone give a sh1t what they think about anything ?

I don't think Frackal is just talking about the ones who actually strap explosives to themselves and blow up a market, so unless your plan is to kill every single person in the Middle East, I think it IS important to understand why an organization like Al Qaeda can actually gain some kind of popular support there.

This isn't a damn action movie, long term solutions NEVER come about just because you've killed enough people. Pro-war folks love to drag out the line that violence has solved a lot of major problems in history, but it's really only half true. WWII came about because, while WWI saw a nice application of violence sufficient to stop Germany for a time, the NON-violent part of the solution was very poorly carried out, probably by people who thought you like do, and thus we had another nice little war a few years later. WWII saw a lasting peace among the participants because once the shooting was done, the situation was hashed out in a reasonable way that worked for everyone.

Even if you think we can't end violence in the Middle East by changing our policies there, you should realize that once the violence is done, we'll need to understand the root of the problems there if we want a lasting peace that doesn't require a massive military presence until the end of time.

I'm not "pro-war". This discussion is about Al Qeada, not the entire Middle East, and not even other "terrorist" groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

I don't consider Al Qeada to be warriors, they are criminals, and cowardly ones at that. I'm not interested in their opinion of "our" policies for any reason other than if it helps us capture them.

And those of you in this thread who want to talk about our "policies" in such a veiled manner, why don't you come out and say what you really mean ?

Dude, shut the ****** up. I am saying exactly what I mean. I listed the policies that piss off muslims either already in this thread or in another thread. I don't know what the hell you're trying to imply that I'm implying, but knock it off. It's pissing me off and you're probably wrong anyway. Come right out and say what you think I'm saying because I sure as hell don't know what you're talking about.

You sure didn't list them in this thread, unless you think saying Russia/Chechnya and India/Kashmir are "policies".

If you do, as an American I don't see either of those issues as my business. But I certainly hope the Russians never negotiate with the people who killed all those school children. If that pisses off Muslims, which I don't think it does, since most Muslims probably find it abhorrent what they did, too bad.

My opinion is this whole radical Islam as a threat is blown way out of proportion, probably for political gain. It's a problem, but it isn't that big of a deal.

We certainly don't need to consider what Al Qeada thinks, when deciding what our policies are. That's like asking the roaches for permission to clean up the kitchen.

If there are policies of the West that you think are wrong, fine, express that view. But don't expect me to weigh what I think of those policies, based on if Al Qeada likes it or not.

I never said anything about policies that are morally right or morally wrong. You do not read what I have written but you respond to it. I will not respond to you further.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: Frackal
The argument about whether they "hate" us for our freedoms or whether they "hate us" for our policies continues so perhaps I can offer some resolution.


They:

- Do "hate" what we consider to be freedoms and way of life.

- But, are ATTACKING us for our policies in the Islamic world. (which includes Russia/Chechnya, India/Kashmir, etc)

That's the important difference to be understood.

Al Qaeda is nothing more than a mercenary group created by the CIA to stop the Soviet occuption of Afghanistan many years ago as you will all recall.

After that work was done, Al Qaeda was deployed again as mercenaries to guard the drug trade, ...it's entire cycle from the planting of the poppys, the drug processing, to the loading of it onto various transports headed to Europe and the USA mainly.

Wrong, wrong wrong. Al Qaeda wasn't created by the CIA nor was it created to oppose the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

 

[straightalker]

right right right

Reminds me of fighting with my brother in the back seat of our car when we were kids.

 

[Polish3d]

wrong wrong wrong and still wrong baby, sorry. Your info is not correct.

 

[zephyrprime]

For once I agree with Frackal.

 

[straightalker]

Ok i'm done playing that game of tricks.

Look into what they became. Look into who created Tim Osmond (CIA name for Osama Bin Laden) and look into who funded and protected Al Qaeda for so many years. Look into who airlifted them out ahead of an advance of USA Special Forces in Afghanistan.

The truth is out there.

...next.