format_quote Originally Posted by
Keltoi
I agree with Blair in large part. The terrorism that we see in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc, is a product of an ideology. That ideology has been in place for many, many years. I'm sure that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been helpful for these terrorist groups in recruiting new followers, as its good propoganda, but this ideology would exist in the absence of any American or British intervention in the ME.
Peace Keltoi,
i was reading back just to see if you last comment
Again,
you are claiming the terrorist activity in question is in the context of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. That isn't the issue here. Yes, suicide attacks in marketplaces and the like occur frequently in these areas...but they aren't directed at Coalition forces, so I don't see your point at all.
was consistent with the thread. i don't believe that to be true, so i'll continue. lets look at:
The terrorism that we see in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc, is a product of an ideology
with regards to Iraq, how many babies died as a result of the Embargo against Iraq? and during this exact time [pre-invasion], how many suicide bombers were there in Iraq?
i know for the 1st part of the question, the answer varies from 300,000 to 500,000. can you answer the 2nd part?
as for:
I'm sure that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been helpful for these terrorist groups in recruiting new followers
there may be some anti Anglo groups whose numbers have grown SINCE THEIR COUNTRIES WERE INVADED! is that really illogical?
this ideology would exist in the absence of any American or British intervention in the ME
are you talking about in the absence of Colonialism and/or the dismantling of the Kaliphate? or the setting up of puppet governments and/or giving land to European Jews to star a new country? are you talking about the toppling of Mossadeq with the assistance of the CIA? are you talking about arming Saddam Hussien with WMDs so he would kill as many Iranians as possible? which of those atrocities should the Muslims in the ME be grateful for?
I didn't make any judgement about who was correct, that is beside the point. I believe it to be fairly obvious that there are different interpretations of what is allowed or justified on Islamic grounds. You can call it a difference of opinion...which amounts to the same thing as two different systems of belief.
how so? you enter a region, rape, pillage and plunder. SOME people think that they should be able to misbehave IN THE SAME MANNER as those who raped, pillaged and plundered them. i might disagree with them, but i also disagree with the ORIGINAL SINS of the ORIGINAL INTERFERERs! [so to speak]
is an American citizen who believes Bush was apiece of shyte who had no right to invade Iraq, less of a citizen who Bush was apiece of shyte who had a right to invade Iraq? and do they BOTH lose their citizenship because some fools actually believe that Bush was a good president?
They could start by actually targeting soldiers.
of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many were killed by "suicide bombers" and how many were killed and being killed by US/Allied Artillery and /or Aircraft/unmanned drones?
Again, they could start by actually defending themselves against an armed enemy. Are women and children, police cadets, and funeral observers such a threat to these valiant warriors?
IF you INVADE a country that only has the weapons that you gave them, how exactly are they supposed to "defend themselves" against a Force armed with "the best weapons available, tanks, jets, warships?"
and again, how many "women and children, police cadets, and funeral observers" did these "valiant warriors" kill BEFORE their country was invaded?
Again, if the Qu'ran states in order to defend a country or the religion you must commit suicide to kill civilians as an act of defense....yeah, I don't think that is what the Qu'ran states. By defending such behavior because they claim that it does...that doesn't make alot of sense.
if it actually said it, it would be black and white. no one is saying that it does say it! i am simply stating that they have the obligation to defend their land against invaders! think of like the minute men hiding behind trees while the redcoats marched in open formation down the street. the Americans in the evolutionary War DID NOT follow the same tactics as their British counterparts. it was economics that forced this, just as it is economics that leads some to utilize tactics that may appear brutal to others. i'm sure many were a little perturbed at Kutuzov's scorched earth policy in 1812. and how about the Gulf of Tonkin lie that caused OVER 3,000,000 million deaths?
why is that you think you can declare total war on a poor country and then be upset at any desperate measures taken to deter the enemy?
bit silly, isn't it?
:w: