If it's a culture issue, why hasn't Bin Laden attacked France?

[Anarchist420]

That's what I want to know.

They're terrorists because we're occupiers, plain and simple.

But for the retards out there who think they're against the entire western world because of culture issues, then can you all explain to me why they haven't attacked France or Scandinavia? They're not occupiers, and the U.S. is more like Islamic culture than the they are. Also, keep in mind the only 2 other western countries that have been attacked by Al-qaida are countries that intervened in the Middle East (U.K and Spain)

 

[yllus]

I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that Bin Laden's primary goals are to drive the West out of the Middle East. However, if you think with that would be the end of his activities you're probably as dumb as we all know you are.

 

[irishScott]

Because they have more realistic goals than you.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Being the Troll that you are, you probably never considered pointing your googler ...

How France confronts terrorism
- "The French authorities have powers of surveillance and communications intercepts that would make even Dick Cheney blush"





--

 

[Moonbeam]

I think it's because Frenchmen have a lot of facial hair when they have sex.

 

[DaveSimmons]

> They're terrorists because we're occupiers, plain and simple.

Yes, 9/11 happened because we were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

 

[irishScott]

> They're terrorists because we're occupiers, plain and simple.

Yes, 9/11 happened because we were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

Remember, this is Anarchist420. The government orchestrated 9/11 specifically so we could go invade that useless pile of rocks known as Afghanistan, the benefit of which was being able to invade Iraq for oil.

 

[chucky2]

France has a large Muslim population. Better to have that population itself rise up than bring external actors in and anger the patriotic Muslim's already there, thereby losing public perception points.

It's the same thing as why San Fran is very safe from OBL.

Chuck

 

[Balt]

> They're terrorists because we're occupiers, plain and simple.

Yes, 9/11 happened because we were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

Well, we were in Saudi Arabia...

Regardless, every fanatic needs a cause. I'm sure OBL would have found some other justification if not that.

 

[Craig234]

Osama bin Laden and his followers support a conservative Muslim religion, and oppose the west's power plays in the region, gaining resources, keeping friendly puppets in power.

They face a hostile Muslim population. To protect their own position and grow their supporters, they need to get other Muslims viewing the west as the enemy.

To do that, the only thing they could really do was to provoke the west into attacking Muslims.

It's an old, classic technique. Most US wars have involved motivating the public by pointing out 'they attacked us', however much we had to make that happen.

In the Bosnian war, the Muslims attacked Serbia horribly, killing police and tecahers and other targets that would ensure Serbia responded harshly- and then they claimed they were being attacked by Serbia and needed help. They hired a US advertising agency for this, who came up with the marketing message comparing Milovevich to Hitler, which swamed the US media and created strong support for the war.

So, Osama bin Laden wanted the US to attack in the Muslim world, to create enemies.

He attacked embassies, hotels, our warship, nothing caused a big reaction - until he planned 9/11 that could not be ignored.

The attack had no sensible purpose, it could not come close to defeating the US ro crippling it, but it could strike the US in a way that rallied Muslims who opposed the US, and get the US to attack a Muslim nation and create enemies who would be natural allies of Al Queda. Indeed studies show that the wars have created many new terrorists, even while the Al Queda organization has been greatly damaged.

Osama bin Laden's plan basically worked. Not as well as he'd like perhaps, but it has caused the US to attack and to lose some international prestige.

Al Queda was no longer under threat of being turned on by fellow Muslims and destroyed.

'They hate us for our freedoms' is nothing but propaganda, a lie, to get people to accept the war without asking any questions about other issues.

But things are not going well for Al Queda it seems. They haven't been able to do much of anything, and their support seems to be under threat.

In recent news, even the Taliban have started to break off from some Al Queda, refusing them safe harbor.

Whenm 9/11 happened, that day I said the best thing we could do was not overreact, and not let it change our country for the worse, while we pursued the attackers and rebuilt.

Unfortunately, we didn't do that. But a decade later without another such attack, the overreaction seems ending.

 

[Fern]

That's what I want to know.

They're terrorists because we're occupiers, plain and simple.

France suffered a lot of bombing in 80's IIRC.

Terrorists were putting bombs in trashcans on the sidewalks near popular spots in downtown Paris.

Fern

 

[DaveSimmons]

The sad part is that the Muslim world was at least somewhat supportive of our invasion of Afghanistan. Interviews at the time mentioned respect for our strength and effectiveness, and our motivations were accepted.

If Bush had stopped there and kept his focus on rebuilding Afghanistan he might have left us with a better legacy there, in the US, and in world opinion of the US.

 

[Lonbjerg]

That's what I want to know.

They're terrorists because we're occupiers, plain and simple.

But for the retards out there who think they're against the entire western world because of culture issues, then can you all explain to me why they haven't attacked France or Scandinavia? They're not occupiers, and the U.S. is more like Islamic culture than the they are. Also, keep in mind the only 2 other western countries that have been attacked by Al-qaida are countries that intervened in the Middle East (U.K and Spain)

Danish Intelligence Services (PET & FE) have thwarted several attempts in Denmark.
Some from people immigrated to Denmark from the midleeast...some from US citizens:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212125,00.html

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article819041.ece

It's not like they are not trying...they (muslims) really dislike that we in Denmark put their faith under our laws (eg. the muhammed cartoons) and didn't fold....unlike the US.

You should read up...it's not like they are not trying.

 

[woolfe9999]

Osama bin Laden and his followers support a conservative Muslim religion, and oppose the west's power plays in the region, gaining resources, keeping friendly puppets in power.

They face a hostile Muslim population. To protect their own position and grow their supporters, they need to get other Muslims viewing the west as the enemy.

To do that, the only thing they could really do was to provoke the west into attacking Muslims.

It's an old, classic technique. Most US wars have involved motivating the public by pointing out 'they attacked us', however much we had to make that happen.

In the Bosnian war, the Muslims attacked Serbia horribly, killing police and tecahers and other targets that would ensure Serbia responded harshly- and then they claimed they were being attacked by Serbia and needed help. They hired a US advertising agency for this, who came up with the marketing message comparing Milovevich to Hitler, which swamed the US media and created strong support for the war.

So, Osama bin Laden wanted the US to attack in the Muslim world, to create enemies.

He attacked embassies, hotels, our warship, nothing caused a big reaction - until he planned 9/11 that could not be ignored.

The attack had no sensible purpose, it could not come close to defeating the US ro crippling it, but it could strike the US in a way that rallied Muslims who opposed the US, and get the US to attack a Muslim nation and create enemies who would be natural allies of Al Queda. Indeed studies show that the wars have created many new terrorists, even while the Al Queda organization has been greatly damaged.

Osama bin Laden's plan basically worked. Not as well as he'd like perhaps, but it has caused the US to attack and to lose some international prestige.

Al Queda was no longer under threat of being turned on by fellow Muslims and destroyed.

'They hate us for our freedoms' is nothing but propaganda, a lie, to get people to accept the war without asking any questions about other issues.

But things are not going well for Al Queda it seems. They haven't been able to do much of anything, and their support seems to be under threat.

In recent news, even the Taliban have started to break off from some Al Queda, refusing them safe harbor.

Whenm 9/11 happened, that day I said the best thing we could do was not overreact, and not let it change our country for the worse, while we pursued the attackers and rebuilt.

Unfortunately, we didn't do that. But a decade later without another such attack, the overreaction seems ending.

Excellent analysis of the true motives of Bin Laden and AQ. The irony is that when they say they are pursuing terrorism to get us out of their countries, they are lying. Actually, us leaving is the worst thing that can happen to them because it undermines their entire raison d'etre.

Personally, I think we should have stayed out of Iraq entirely, and with Afghanistan, we should never have made an attempt at nation building, especially not there where the task is nigh impossible. We should have just gone in with overwhelming military force, killed all of Al Quaida, including Bin Laden, which it is now clear we were well capable of doing, killed or captured the upper Taliban leadership, then gotten the hell out and let the Afghani's sort it out. This should have been about killing terrorists, not about nation building, from the start. We'd be so much better off now in SO many ways if we had not over-reacted the way we did.

- wolf

 

[wwswimming]

If it's a culture issue, why hasn't Bin Laden attacked France?

maybe he likes Pomme Frite - French Fries - whatever.

 

[shortylickens]

Attacking France is like stomping your 6 year old brother at Battlefield 2. It might give you a slight rush for a minute, until you realize the challenge was so low its actually kind of shameful you even bothered.

 

[irishScott]

Attacking France is like stomping your 6 year old brother at Battlefield 2. It might give you a slight rush for a minute, until you realize the challenge was so low its actually kind of shameful you even bothered.

Meh, maybe in the past but the modern French military is certainly nothing to scoff at. They're actually one of the few countries with an operational aircraft carrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

French intelligence/counter terrorism is also very formidable from what I've read.

 

[nonlnear]

French intelligence/counter terrorism is also very formidable from what I've read.

Yes, the French have always been good at talking. An entire nation of cunning linguists.

 

[Danube]

Attacks on the Eiffel Tower have been blocked a couple times:

Terror plot to blow up Eiffel Tower uncovered

"A plot by Islamic terrorists to blow up the Eiffel Tower has been uncovered...

It comes after a spate of other threats made in recent days on the websites linked to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror network, calling for the "brothers of Islam to strike Paris". "

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23432061-terror-plot-to-blow-up-eiffel-tower-uncovered.do



"Terrorists convicted in France planned Eiffel tower blast "

"PARIS (Reuters) - A French court convicted 25 Islamist militants on Wednesday of planning terror attacks in Paris, possibly using chemical weapons, and of recruiting fighters to send to Chechnya and Afghanistan.
One witness said the targets had included the Eiffel Tower, as well as police stations and a city center shopping mall.


The four ringleaders, who are either Algerian nationals or of Algerian descent, received jail terms of between nine and 10 years. The other 21 defendants were jailed for up to eight years, including some suspended sentences.


The court found the defendants guilty of "criminal association in relation with a terrorist enterprise," a broad charge which covers numerous crimes.


The plot came to light in late 2002 when police raided a flat near Paris and found electronic parts used in detonators and chemicals that can be used in explosives."

 

[Noobtastic]

Osama bin Laden and his followers support a conservative Muslim religion, and oppose the west's power plays in the region, gaining resources, keeping friendly puppets in power.

They face a hostile Muslim population. To protect their own position and grow their supporters, they need to get other Muslims viewing the west as the enemy.

To do that, the only thing they could really do was to provoke the west into attacking Muslims.

It's an old, classic technique. Most US wars have involved motivating the public by pointing out 'they attacked us', however much we had to make that happen.

In the Bosnian war, the Muslims attacked Serbia horribly, killing police and tecahers and other targets that would ensure Serbia responded harshly- and then they claimed they were being attacked by Serbia and needed help. They hired a US advertising agency for this, who came up with the marketing message comparing Milovevich to Hitler, which swamed the US media and created strong support for the war.

So, Osama bin Laden wanted the US to attack in the Muslim world, to create enemies.

He attacked embassies, hotels, our warship, nothing caused a big reaction - until he planned 9/11 that could not be ignored.

The attack had no sensible purpose, it could not come close to defeating the US ro crippling it, but it could strike the US in a way that rallied Muslims who opposed the US, and get the US to attack a Muslim nation and create enemies who would be natural allies of Al Queda. Indeed studies show that the wars have created many new terrorists, even while the Al Queda organization has been greatly damaged.

Osama bin Laden's plan basically worked. Not as well as he'd like perhaps, but it has caused the US to attack and to lose some international prestige.

Al Queda was no longer under threat of being turned on by fellow Muslims and destroyed.

'They hate us for our freedoms' is nothing but propaganda, a lie, to get people to accept the war without asking any questions about other issues.

But things are not going well for Al Queda it seems. They haven't been able to do much of anything, and their support seems to be under threat.

In recent news, even the Taliban have started to break off from some Al Queda, refusing them safe harbor.

Whenm 9/11 happened, that day I said the best thing we could do was not overreact, and not let it change our country for the worse, while we pursued the attackers and rebuilt.

Unfortunately, we didn't do that. But a decade later without another such attack, the overreaction seems ending.

Largely agree, except your offensive denial of the anti-Muslim bigotry that existed in Serbia. Although it is not surprising, many leftists continue to deny the srebrenica massacre and try to victimize slobodan milosevic as a victim of NATO's imperialism.

Ideology always takes precedence over reality when it comes to Chomsky trolls. But this time Craig is mostly right.

 

[Craig234]

Largely agree, except your offensive denial of the anti-Muslim bigotry that existed in Serbia. Although it is not surprising, many leftists continue to deny the srebrenica massacre and try to victimize slobodan milosevic as a victim of NATO's imperialism.

Ideology always takes precedence over reality when it comes to Chomsky trolls. But this time Craig is mostly right.

I didn't deny the anti-Muslim bigotry in Serbia - it just wasn't part of the point I was making about how the Muslims went from being just another forgotten abused group to one who got the US fighting a war on their behalf. Frankly, I'm no expert on the situation; having read some various sources on it, I suspect there was some real and significant anti-Muslim bigotry involved. It seems of of those situations - a la Sunni/Shiite - there there are groups at odds where you can find both cooperation and conflict depending what you look at.

A writer I find interesting - Michael Parenti - fits what you say about some on the left in denying the mass killings reported. I have no good way to say just what happened, but I don't accept his version at face value. Based on having to speculate I'd guess the odds are over 50% there's some truth to it. But we're dealing with a situation in which claims are made for very biased reasons (by at least one side, whichever it is). But heck, we can't get the Turks to admit to this day the Armenian mass killings a century ago - and the US government has only just started to say much.

Milosevich being terrible doesn't change the issue of the history of going after the larger entity of Yugoslavisa over time for being leftist - a pattern with a long history in the world, unarguably IMO.

But in this case, the bulk of the evidence leans towards this being the rare 'good motivation war', despite the dubious elements in my post such as the advertising agency (reminding me of the advertising agency who played a big role in swaying US public opinion in the first gulf war aganst Saddam, with the tearful congressional testimony of taking babies from Kuwaiti incubators, that were all lies orchestrated by the agency, the branch run by Bosh's former chief of staff, the agency hired by the Kuwaiti government, the tearful woman the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter).

One dubious thing about the US's benevolence is that in their claims to have tried for peace, they had merely given Milosevich an ultimatim with some very objectionable terms (such as something close to the right of NATO to occupy his nation at will IIRC) with no flexibility for negotiating that made it appear to be a PR exercise for saying they tried but a determination to go to war.

But most of what I've heard suggests humanitarian motives for the war more than anything, a 'new war' type following the end of the cold war, just as Somalia.

Your second paragraph, though, costs you any credibility IMO, offensive and false. Chomsky troll? The only troll here, if there is one, would be in your mirror. You would be better not posting it.

There is, contrary to your attack, zero ideology involved here in my comments. But your ideology insists there has to be, and so you just say there is, ironically doing what you attacked.

 

[piasabird]

What makes you think there is no terrorism in France? I distinctly remember seeing stories of cars being overturned and set on fire by "Youths". France is just too scared to call them Muslim Extremists.

What a wicked web we weave,
when we parctice to deceive!

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

France has the most severe Muslim violence in the entire western hemisphere. Massive fail, OP.

 

[Noobtastic]

I didn't deny the anti-Muslim bigotry in Serbia - it just wasn't part of the point I was making about how the Muslims went from being just another forgotten abused group to one who got the US fighting a war on their behalf. Frankly, I'm no expert on the situation; having read some various sources on it, I suspect there was some real and significant anti-Muslim bigotry involved. It seems of of those situations - a la Sunni/Shiite - there there are groups at odds where you can find both cooperation and conflict depending what you look at.

A writer I find interesting - Michael Parenti - fits what you say about some on the left in denying the mass killings reported. I have no good way to say just what happened, but I don't accept his version at face value. Based on having to speculate I'd guess the odds are over 50% there's some truth to it. But we're dealing with a situation in which claims are made for very biased reasons (by at least one side, whichever it is). But heck, we can't get the Turks to admit to this day the Armenian mass killings a century ago - and the US government has only just started to say much.

Milosevich being terrible doesn't change the issue of the history of going after the larger entity of Yugoslavisa over time for being leftist - a pattern with a long history in the world, unarguably IMO.

But in this case, the bulk of the evidence leans towards this being the rare 'good motivation war', despite the dubious elements in my post such as the advertising agency (reminding me of the advertising agency who played a big role in swaying US public opinion in the first gulf war aganst Saddam, with the tearful congressional testimony of taking babies from Kuwaiti incubators, that were all lies orchestrated by the agency, the branch run by Bosh's former chief of staff, the agency hired by the Kuwaiti government, the tearful woman the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter).

One dubious thing about the US's benevolence is that in their claims to have tried for peace, they had merely given Milosevich an ultimatim with some very objectionable terms (such as something close to the right of NATO to occupy his nation at will IIRC) with no flexibility for negotiating that made it appear to be a PR exercise for saying they tried but a determination to go to war.

But most of what I've heard suggests humanitarian motives for the war more than anything, a 'new war' type following the end of the cold war, just as Somalia.

Your second paragraph, though, costs you any credibility IMO, offensive and false. Chomsky troll? The only troll here, if there is one, would be in your mirror. You would be better not posting it.

There is, contrary to your attack, zero ideology involved here in my comments. But your ideology insists there has to be, and so you just say there is, ironically doing what you attacked.

You said the Muslims instigated the violence, and the Serbs merely responded. You completely ignored and failed to mention or even highlight the extreme muslim bigotry of the leftist/socialist regime.

Chomsky said he didn't believe the sebrenica massacre was a "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" because "not enough people died to qualify as one."

Yes, his words.

Chomsky is clearly a moral idiot. Serb's line thousands of people up against a wall in exterminate them, but a Palestinian trips over a rock and its ethnic cleansing, apartheid, racism11!!

IT's hard to take the left seriously when they are so in love with homicidal communists. The only muslims they support are the ones that were in bed with the soviets or the ones finding the "imperialists."

 

[fallout man]

Largely agree, except your offensive denial of the anti-Muslim bigotry that existed in Serbia. Although it is not surprising, many leftists continue to deny the srebrenica massacre and try to victimize slobodan milosevic as a victim of NATO's imperialism.

Ideology always takes precedence over reality when it comes to Chomsky trolls. But this time Craig is mostly right.

LOL WHAT?

That is a completely new one. I've never seen anyone here making excuses for that failure of a man.

If you're trying to troll both sides of the coin, you're not doing a very good job. Let's talk. We can work together...