Why do the right think subversives attack the west?

runswithascript

I've noticed they never seem to give any reason for this apart from the fact that these people hate our way of life etc - surely there's more too it? Hell the dogs in the street know why they do it, do you?

mike65

What do you think is the reason? As you pose the rhetorical question.

Mike.

runswithascript

It wasn't rhetorical.

Interference, Israel, deposing democratically elected leaders to install their own puppets.

We're your friend <insert maniac here>
We're your enemy <insert maniac here>
We're your friend <insert maniac here>
We're your enemy <insert maniac here>

AngelofFire

One of the Main terror groups that attack the west like Al Qaeda and Taliban were supported, armed, trained and even assisted into power by the U.S., but Post 9-11 the U.S. government prefer that people do not find out about the past, because if they do it might Just Put a question mark on the country's commitment to fighting terrorism.

mike65

dusf wrote:

It wasn't rhetorical.

Interference, Israel, deposing democratically elected leaders to install their own puppets.

We're your friend <insert maniac here>
We're your enemy <insert maniac here>
We're your friend <insert maniac here>
We're your enemy <insert maniac here>

I'm intrigued name names please.

Mike.

Frederico

mike65 wrote:

I'm intrigued name names please.

Mike.

Communist China : Friend
Communist Cuba : Enemy
Uzbeki Dictator : Friend
and so on and so forth

runswithascript

mike65 wrote:

I'm intrigued name names please.

Mike.

Lebanon, Iran, Iraq....

Dazrd

Heres why we should take the Idea of america's noble crusade against terrorism with a pinch of salt : during the reagan admin they were condemned by the international court of justice for terrorism and ordered to pay reperations to the sum of 17 billion to the nicaraguans...... needless to say the nicaraguans got squat

in 1987 America and Israel were the only two countrys to vote against a resolution that all states should combat terrorism wherever and by whomever they find it ...... why is that I wonder.

What a differance a few decades make heres a quote from Robert Jackson chief counsel for the U.S at the nuremburg trials

"if certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes,' he said .'they are crimes whether the united states does them or whether germany does them,and we are not prepared to lay down rule of criminal conduct against others we would not be willing to have invoked against us"

That says it all I think

brianthebard

Frederico wrote:

Communist China : Friend
Communist Cuba : Enemy
Uzbeki Dictator : Friend
and so on and so forth

They are both socialist countries, albeit mostly in name in the case of China.

Sand

I've noticed they never seem to give any reason for this apart from the fact that these people hate our way of life etc - surely there's more too it?

Why does there have to be?

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Why does there have to be?

The principle of cause and effect perchance?

Unless you're suggesting that these attacks are just the result of psychopaths with deranged minds, and if that's the case, the whole 'war on terror' amounts to the same thing as carpet bombing the whole state of Vermont just to get Ted Bundy

Sand

The principle of cause and effect perchance?

Unless you're suggesting that these attacks are just the result of psychopaths with deranged minds, and if that's the case, the whole 'war on terror' amounts to the same thing as carpet bombing the whole state of Vermont just to get Ted Bundy

Im suggesting there is no evidence that Jihadists take spiritual guidance from Noam Chomsky. I doubt they give two fecks what Reagan did, US policy on Cuba or that the Nuremberg trials were so hypocritical. Thats the posters on this thread airing their own grievances. Doesnt help an iota in determining Al Queda world view.

So again, I ask, why does there have to be more to it than Jihadist idealogy? Is everyone with a gun and a cause secretly a card carrying member of the armed wing of Amnesty International or something?

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Im suggesting there is no evidence that Jihadists take spiritual guidance from Noam Chomsky. I doubt they give two fecks what Reagan did, US policy on Cuba or that the Nuremberg trials were so hypocritical. Thats the posters on this thread airing their own grievances. Doesnt help an iota in determining Al Queda world view.

So again, I ask, why does there have to be more to it than Jihadist idealogy? Is everyone with a gun and a cause secretly a card carrying member of the armed wing of Amnesty International or something?

Because Al Qaeda have stated demands

But what if, instead, Al Qaeda's agenda is what its leaders repeatedly say it is: an end to the Western
military presence in Muslim lands, to "uncritical political support and military aid" to Israel, and to support of
corrupt Middle Eastern regimes. Most scholars of Islam argue that because jihad is a defensive concept, the
attacks on us must be understood as retaliation for perceived provocations, and that Al Qaeda's stated agenda —
which has been consistent since 1996 — should be taken literally.

http://www.nyu.edu/ccpr/LA%20TImes%20OpEd_9.19.05.pdf

And why is it so hard to imagine that Islamic people feel a similar kind of urge to defend their religion and homes as the 'Patriotic' volunteers for the U.S. army?

Dazrd

The rights they hate our way of life excuse is a crock of ****, if that were true why do all the countries in western Europe have sizable muslim communities do they believe their all sleeper agents just waiting to be activated, its laughable.

Sand

And why is it so hard to imagine that Islamic people feel a similar kind of urge to defend their religion and homes as the 'Patriotic' volunteers for the U.S. army?

Because the 'Patriotic' volunteers of the U.S. army arent suicide bombing kids and other innocent in Detroit, whilst your supposed patriotic vision of the Jihadists in Iraq are doing their best to murder as many Muslims of the "wrong" stripe as they can in Baghdad. Theres a certain break in the equivalence there.

You might then admit, that perhaps there is other motivations at play. Though I doubt you will.

Long story short - these guys have their own goals and objectives. They do not include voting anarchist socialist or whatever particular angle you have. They have not taken up arms to destroy US or Western influence in the Islamic world and then retire, they have done so to destroy the current status quo in the Islamic world - including the genocide of impure peoples such as Shia muslims - and replace it with one of their own making. This obviously requires the removal of Western influence, but it doesnt end there as you imagine. It doesnt really matter if you think theyre fighting to avenge Reagan or whatever. Thats your angle, do them the credit of allowing that they have their own angle.

Sand

if that were true why do all the countries in western Europe have sizable muslim communities do they believe their all sleeper agents just waiting to be activated, its laughable.

Because being muslim doesnt mean youre a wild eyed fanatical terrorist. FYI.

InFront

Because the 'Patriotic' volunteers of the U.S. army arent suicide bombing kids and other innocent in Detroit, whilst your supposed patriotic vision of the Jihadists in Iraq are doing their best to murder as many Muslims of the "wrong" stripe as they can in Baghdad. Theres a certain break in the equivalence there.

They're going out to Iraq to kill Iraqis/ Militants/ patriots of "the wrong stripe" as you call it, and in doing so seriously endangering their own lives for the USA. They put themselves in dangers way for patriotism. There's a certain break in the equivalence there.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Because the 'Patriotic' volunteers of the U.S. army arent suicide bombing kids and other innocent in Detroit, whilst your supposed patriotic vision of the Jihadists in Iraq are doing their best to murder as many Muslims of the "wrong" stripe as they can in Baghdad. Theres a certain break in the equivalence there.

Nope, because Detroit isn't under hostile military occupation is it, but there are gang wars in American cities where thousands of poor black kids are killed every year because they are literally wearing the "wrong" stripe' and there are many innocent deaths which are racially motivated

The Latino gang members were looking for a black person, any black person, to shoot, the police said, and they found one. Cheryl Green, perched near her scooter chatting with friends, was shot dead in a spray of bullets that left several other young people injured.

She was 14, an eighth grader who loved junk food and watching Court TV with her mother and had recently written a poem beginning: “I am black and beautiful. I wonder how I will be living in the future.”

“I never thought something like this could happen here in L.A.,” said her mother, Charlene Lovett, fighting tears.

Cheryl’s killing last month, which the police said followed a confrontation between the gang members and a black man, stands out in a wave of bias-related attacks and incidents in a city that promotes its diversity as much as frets over it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/us/17race.html?ei=5090&en=a34ac77e3d9a409f&ex=1326690000&partner=r&pagewanted=print

You might then admit, that perhaps there is other motivations at play. Though I doubt you will.

What are those other motivations again? That they hate our freedom?

Long story short - these guys have their own goals and objectives. They do not include voting anarchist socialist or whatever particular angle you have. They have not taken up arms to destroy US or Western influence in the Islamic world and then retire, they have done so to destroy the current status quo in the Islamic world - including the genocide of impure peoples such as Shia muslims - and replace it with one of their own making. This obviously requires the removal of Western influence, but it doesnt end there as you imagine. It doesnt really matter if you think theyre fighting to avenge Reagan or whatever. Thats your angle, do them the credit of allowing that they have their own angle.

Responding to U.S. foreign Policy is the angle that they claim for themselves, It is you who are ascribing to them your own perveived agenda

Sand

They're going out to Iraq to kill Iraqis/ Militants/ patriots of "the wrong stripe" as you call it, and in doing so seriously endangering their own lives for the USA. They put themselves in dangers way for patriotism. There's a certain break in the equivalence there.

In your own mind. How its patriotic to kill the people youre supposedly patriotic about is a new one on me. The obvious conclusion is that jihadists dont give two ****s about the Iraqi people seeing as theyre doing their best to deliberately murder them. Apparently theyre now using children to beat road blocks - previously the Iraqi army/coalition forces waved through vehicles with children in them as they didnt consider it likely that the insurgents would use their kids as cover. And yet, they do.

Nope, because Detroit isn't under hostile military occupation is it, but there are gang wars in American cities where thousands of poor black kids are killed every year because they are literally wearing the "wrong" stripe' and there are many innocent deaths which are racially motivated

Seriously - what the f**k are you going on about here? Back to the topic, leave the tirade about institutionalised US racism for another thread.

What are those other motivations again? That they hate our freedom?

No, Im sure they believe whatever you read in Noam Chomskys latest book.:rolleyes:

Responding to U.S. foreign Policy is the angle that they claim for themselves, It is you who are ascribing to them your own perveived agenda

Right, so you believe they *are* the armed wing of Amnesty International and thats why theyre bombing each other in Baghdad - because they didnt like what Reagan did to the Nicaraguans 20 years ago. Yeah, seems reasonable.

InFront

In your own mind. How its patriotic to kill the people youre supposedly patriotic about is a new one on me.

Wait a minute, weren't the Americans getting all patriotic about the Iraqis about this time four years ago? The oppressed people who wanted to just *let freedom ring*

Institutionalised US racism? seriously... read your history.

runswithascript

Sand wrote:

Why does there have to be?

I'm not a fan of Israel's policies but I'm not going to fly halfway around the world and blow people up.

Voipjunkie

dusf wrote:

I'm not a fan of Israel's policies but I'm not going to fly halfway around the world and blow people up.

If you were living in Palestine and were directly affected by those policies of course you would not have to fly anywhere and would have a huge encouragement to take that kind of action.

The move to fundamentalist islam is a reaction to the "Wests" involvement in the middle east in much the same way that the Poles moved to Catholicism as a reaction to the Soviet Occupation and this country did the same after 7 decades we started to move on and that thankfully is continuing the same will happen in Poland and if the west would leave the Middle East alone those people in those countries would do the same.
It can be most obviously seen in Iraq which was a a moderate pluralist society prior to the invasion. And in Afghanistan which was a relatively peaceful non fundamentalist country prior to the Soviet invasion.

InFront

Exactly. And Iran before The British/ Americans installed the Shah.

SeanW

Well, to be fair inFront, dusf et. al. the violence in Iraq seems to be just random slaughter of civilians rather than any kind of war.

I don't like the Iraq war any more than the next guy, but with most of the attacks in Iraq being aimed at murdering as many fellow Muslims in cafes and markets as possible, and at the Iraqi police who are only trying to restore order, my view is that the insurrection is a terrorist one rather than any kind of legitimate resistance.

I too have read of and seen some detail over the modern imperial muslce-flexing over various parts of the underdeveloped world, like from the Soviet Union, USA etc and I wish it wasn't happening. It would be so much better if we could all just get along and progress as a human race but we're not really doing that, I guess that's just the world we live in.

runswithascript

Sand wrote:

Because the 'Patriotic' volunteers of the U.S. army arent suicide bombing kids and other innocent in Detroit, whilst your supposed patriotic vision of the Jihadists in Iraq are doing their best to murder as many Muslims of the "wrong" stripe as they can in Baghdad.

Firstly we're not talking about what subversives do in Baghdad; see the title of this thread.

Secondly in regards to things not being equivalent are you totally ignorant to how many people have been murdered by US Forces, mainly from the air?

I don't condone the killing of innocent people on either side or in fact the killing of the guilty by Americans. I don't sympathize with suicide bombers but I do empathise with them and before someone calls me a terrorist apologist please make sure you understand the difference or else I shall have to direct you to a dictionary definition.

InFront

Seanw, there are many different elements to the insurgency - some is legitimate resistance, the rest of it is not.
That isn't letting the US forces off the hook by the way, despite what their apologists say. It's a bit like setting off a domino system and then protesting "I didn't do anything!"

Some might still say that affirms US innocence - and yes the insurgents who are not focusing their interests on the US (and they are many) are impossible to defend.

But remember the US Army are the guys who appointed themselves in charge of the security situation there. If there was rioting in Ohio, and the army couldn't stop it, people would blame the army for being powerless. But when it happens in Iraq people say 'hey don't blame us'.

Colin Powell once reminded his boss that through the invasion, he had just become responsible for 30 million Iraqis. Knowing the divisions that existed, the invaders still asked for responsibility of the Iraqi security situation. They have failed to provide that security. That seems something that is lost on a lot of people.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

In your own mind. How its patriotic to kill the people youre supposedly patriotic about is a new one on me. The obvious conclusion is that jihadists dont give two ****s about the Iraqi people seeing as they're doing their best to deliberately murder them.

It's a sectarian civil war and it's being constantly inflamed by the presence of occupation forces. (there is a lot of evidence that the U.S. are pursuing the 'Salvador option' in Iraq. If you don't know what that is, look it up.) There is a lot of evidence that death squads are operationg with impunity all over Iraq and it is possible, if not probable, that these death squads are being backed by the United states
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FUL506A.html

Seriously - what the f**k are you going on about here? Back to the topic, leave the tirade about institutionalised US racism for another thread.

You brought up Detroit Sand as if it was relevant and as if it demonstrated that Islamic fighters are somehow uniquely blood thirsty. (What does that have to do with anything, detroit isn't under imperial occupation) You 'doubt' that the jihadists are motivated by western attacks on their religion and race, (based on your belief that muslims are incapable of empathising with their kin?) but you have no problem with the concept of altruistic patriotic american GIs fighting because they "love america"? It's a double standard verging on racism

No, Im sure they believe whatever you read in Noam Chomskys latest book.:rolleyes:

Cop on sand. Do you think these Arabs are stupid? They know the history of american Imperialism far better than most people in the west, they have experienced it first hand. America has been bombing Iraq regularly and without pause since 1992. They killed at least 100,000 in the first invasion, at least a million through sanctions and are responsible for a further 600,000 deaths and countless maimings since 2003.

The arab world has about a million times more reason to be pissed off at america than america has to be pissed off at the Arabs, but still, America are preparing to invade another middle eastern islamic country for no reason.

runswithascript

American Imperialism?

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

nacho libre

Akrasia, you are clearly wrong.
Can't you see Sand's train of thought in this thread is spot-on.
Arabs are all bloodthirsty "jihadists" they have absolutely no reason to hate America. American governance over the years has been nothing but benevolent -a paragon of virtue. Sure America might kill hundreds of thousands of Arabs from time to time but the dead appreciate they have to be sacrificed for liberation.
America's main foreign policy aim has always been to spread democracy and freedom, their primary motivation has never been expansionism.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Cop on sand.

If you don't want another ban,you won't be asking other posters to cop on,you will instead stick strictly to dealing with their posts.
The only people that will be telling people to op on in this thread will be politics moderators,Smods or admins.
Everyone is entitled to express an opinion here and to explain why they have that opinion.It's your own problem if you don't like their opinion but you may not make it personal.
So Cop on Akrasia.

runswithascript

nacho libre wrote:

Arabs are all bloodthirsty "jihadists" they have absolutely no reason to hate America

You Sir, are a racist.

America's main foreign policy aim has always been to spread democracy and freedom, their primary motivation has never been expansionism.

What a crock - their foreign policy is to spread and exert their will though I must admit things are a helluva lot better with a democrat in the whitehouse.

Sand

Wait a minute, weren't the Americans getting all patriotic about the Iraqis about this time four years ago?

People from Country A technically cant be patriotic about Country B - only Country A. Stop trying to shift goalposts.

Firstly we're not talking about what subversives do in Baghdad; see the title of this thread.

Were talking about Jihadist terrorism, which is currently inspiring attacks on Shia mosques, religious figures and muslims in Iraq with counter attacks on Sunni mosques, religious figures and muslims in Iraq. Someone tried to make some point about equivalence between the motivations of the US army [patriotism] and the various jihadist groups which are deeply hostile to Shia Islam. This hostility isnt limited to Iraq, it is idealogical - several incidents almost sparked war between the Taliban and Iran [who were quite happy to see the regime taken out]

It is plain out delusional to think that jihadist idealogy is defending Islamic peoples and countries given that they are doing their best to murder Islamic peoples who dont meet with their standards.

Secondly in regards to things not being equivalent are you totally ignorant to how many people have been murdered by US Forces, mainly from the air?

Okay so now you believe the US airforce is bombing Detroit?

You brought up Detroit Sand as if it was relevant and as if it demonstrated that Islamic fighters are somehow uniquely blood thirsty.

I brought it up to demonstrate the ludicrous nature of claiming its patriotic to murder your own countrymen. The agenda of jihadist groups goes far beyond some wishful thinking about defending the Islamic world. They have a plan for the Islamic world, one which I doubt Amnesty International would wholly approve of.

You 'doubt' that the jihadists are motivated by western attacks on their religion and race, (based on your belief that muslims are incapable of empathising with their kin?) but you have no problem with the concept of altruistic patriotic american GIs fighting because they "love america"? It's a double standard verging on racism

Jihadist groups are targeting and murdering Islamic civillians and leaders. How in gods name alone that is patriotic in Islamic terms is a mystery to all except you it seems. Its an opinion completely devoid of reason, logic or factual grounding. You *wish* it was true, but that does not make it true.

You Sir, are a racist.

Heh, its like a f**king carwreak:rolleyes: . He was being sarcastic...badly, but he tried. Good job on the j'accuse, but personal abuse is a no no.

What a crock - their foreign policy is to spread and exert their will though I must admit things are a helluva lot better with a democrat in the whitehouse

.

Whooooosh.

dusf

dusf wrote:

You Sir, are a racist.
.

And you sir are banned for 2 weeks

democrates

Sand you mentioned Iran. I get the impression there's more going on than meets the eye.

The key source for the wmd 'intelligence' is said by some to have turned out to be an Iranian agent. If this is true, then it's highly probable Iran wanted the USA to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Since then, Iran is accused of fuelling one side of the fued, if this is so it would seem they want to make it impossible for the occupiers/liberators to succeed in establishing peace, let alone a peaceful western style democracy.

Now that the situation has descended into chaos and the call to retreat has grown, the option of a regional plan was touted as the best solution. But Iran have been threatening Israel with genocide, looking like they are at risk of developing nuclear weapons, so on the face of it looking like a lunatic nation that the USA/UK etc cannot contemplate sitting down at the bargaining table with.

The USA/UK etc seem to be faced with simply retreating and admitting failure, and living with the regional and global consequences of that. Worse, if Iran goads with the nuclear threat enough the coalition of the willing can't invade/hold/pacify - already proven impossible, so they may either invade/destroy/retreat like Israels last Lebanon incursion, just bomb key installations, and/or attempt to back another coup, good luck with that, either way causing another firestorm of outrage across the region and at best averting nuclear catastrophe.

Ahmadinejad could be as mad as he sounds and be thirsty for a major (nuclear?) war, or he could be playing some very cunning strategic game.

Could a loss of regional influence for the USA/UK (and the rest of the world in general) and/or the removal of 'infidels' be all they want, or is there additional advantage sought, eg carve Iraq once it's vacated with the oil-rich south annexed by Iran "for the protection of the Shia and their sacred cities of Najaf and Karbala"?

The nuclear threat seems to be getting played up deliberately as opposed to developed in secret as one would expect, and we have all the anti-Israel hyperbole. Iran could potentially do a deal and appear to be making major concessions. In return they get to expand their territory into southern Iraq, promise no more nuclear weapons pursuit, secure uranium ore for electricity allowing international inspections, and sell oil.

I don't know how that would work for the rest of it though. A Kurdistan north would hardly be tolerated by Turkey, or could it with EU/UN pressure and some deal on access to oil/contracts, or could the north become part of Turkey? But that would leave the resource poor Sunni center, could Syria expand here and be content with a land-grab and an oil deal?

Could be a win-win deal all around (obviously referring to the dealmakers here and not the humanitarian disaster), Iraq 'solved', Iranian nuclear threat averted, Syria and Turkey satisfied-ish, oil flowing, reconstuction projects underway. There's not much of a unified Iraqi national identity to preserve anyway, but while I can see an easy deal for Iran I'm not sure on the rest of it.

It's just seeing the USA/UK caught so wrong-footed at every step and Iran apparently in the shadows each time leads me to suspect a serious level of craftiness, at the individual fighter level it's a different thing but the ruling powers are another species.

Akrasia

..

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Quote:
Wait a minute, weren't the Americans getting all patriotic about the Iraqis about this time four years ago?

Jihadist groups are targeting and murdering Islamic civillians and leaders. How in gods name alone that is patriotic in Islamic terms is a mystery to all except you it seems. Its an opinion completely devoid of reason, logic or factual grounding. You *wish* it was true, but that does not make it true.

Civil wars are always countryman against country man, and when a country is under occupation, those who are seen as collaborating with the enemy are targets. It happened in the Irish civil war, it happened in ther American civil war, it's a matter of scale. Iraq is very fecked up right now, but that is largely the fault of U.S foreign policy going back decades

Dazrd

How did Dusf not sense the sarcasm in Nachos post it was dripping in it

wes

Akrasia wrote:

Civil wars are always countryman against country man, and when a country is under occupation, those who are seen as collaborating with the enemy are targets. It happened in the Irish civil war, it happened in ther American civil war, it's a matter of scale. Iraq is very fecked up right now, but that is largely the fault of U.S foreign policy going back decades

To be fair if we are gonna blame foreign policy then the British are just as responsible for the current shape of Iraq, maybe even more so, than the U.S.

Akrasia

wes wrote:

Akrasia wrote:

To be fair if we are gonna blame foreign policy then the British are just as responsible for the current shape of Iraq, maybe even more so, than the U.S.

Yeah you're right. The problem is imperialism and the onsequences are always negative, whether it's American, British, Chinese Russian or whoever. All these attempts at creating client states and protectorates have loads of negative consequences

InFront

Sand wrote:

People from Country A technically cant be patriotic about Country B - only Country A. Stop trying to shift goalposts.

Stop trying to pretend it doesn't count. What I'm pointing out is that four years ago, the oppression and savagery of that 'evil dictator' Saddam was a uniting force for the democratic 'God-fearing' Americans under their leader. The leadership appealed to the patriotism of the Americans to find in itself the motivation to "liberate" Iraqis - Operation Iraqi Freedom, as it was called. It doesn't mean that Americans are Iraqi Patriots - but that they got patriotic about Iraq

Originally posted by Sand
How its patriotic to kill the people youre supposedly patriotic about is a new one on me.

wes

Akrasia wrote:

Yeah you're right. The problem is imperialism and the onsequences are always negative, whether it's American, British, Chinese Russian or whoever. All these attempts at creating client states and protectorates have loads of negative consequences

Also to be fairer still the Ottomans are also responsible for the unholy mess to a lesser degree.

Dontico

nacho libre wrote:

Akrasia, you are clearly wrong.
Can't you see Sand's train of thought in this thread is spot-on.
Arabs are all bloodthirsty "jihadists" they have absolutely no reason to hate America. American governance over the years has been nothing but benevolent -a paragon of virtue. Sure America might kill hundreds of thousands of Arabs from time to time but the dead appreciate they have to be sacrificed for liberation.
America's main foreign policy aim has always been to spread democracy and freedom, their primary motivation has never been expansionism.

this is blatantly racist. isnt just isulting to muslims, arabs and rational think westerners everywhere. the fact that someone was banned for pointing out this poster is racist just shows that soem mods on this forum is racist.

i am well aware of the risk that i myself my be banned fom this forum.

after the nazi's where defeated everyone said "never again".

edit: if the poster was trying to be funny he should added a smiley face or a "/joking" after it. i'm sicken about the level of acceptable racism going around today.

InFront

I think nacho libre was being sarcastic:)
Sometimes sarcasm comes out weird on the internet though

Dontico

democrates wrote:

Ahmadinejad could be as mad as he sounds and be thirsty for a major (nuclear?) war, or he could be playing some very cunning strategic game.

under iranian law, the president himself cant wage war against another country. the president is democraticaly elected to apoint ministers to run the country and to represent iran globally. it is the job of the *'supreme ruler' to wage war against another country.

*i think thats what he is called. not sure how he is appointed. my guess either through the mosques or some royal family.

nacho libre

Dontico wrote:

this is blatantly racist. isnt just isulting to muslims, arabs and rational think westerners everywhere. the fact that someone was banned for pointing out this poster is racist just shows that soem mods on this forum is racist.

i am well aware of the risk that i myself my be banned fom this forum.

after the nazi's where defeated everyone said "never again".

edit: if the poster was trying to be funny he should added a smiley face or a "/joking" after it. i'm sicken about the level of acceptable racism going around today.

I thought it was obvious i was being sarcastic. I suppose it's hard to detect that on the internet. Anyway, sorry for offending anyone with my original post.

Dontico

Dontico wrote:

this is blatantly racist. isnt just isulting to muslims, arabs and rational think westerners everywhere. the fact that someone was banned for pointing out this poster is racist just shows that soem mods on this forum is racist.

i am well aware of the risk that i myself my be banned fom this forum.

after the nazi's where defeated everyone said "never again".

edit: if the poster was trying to be funny he should added a smiley face or a "/joking" after it. i'm sicken about the level of acceptable racism going around today.

If you have a problem with a post -Report it
Taking up issues in thread like that is not acceptable.
Discussing forum moderation in thread is not acceptable.
Accusing mods of racism with no justification is not acceptable.
I'm not banning you on this occasion,though this is the 2nd time I've seen you disrupt threads here with a side swipe at modding.
Do not do this again or there will be a ban imposed-oh and relax too will ya please,this is the internet-all is not as it seems to you.


I'm not warning anybody about this again

democrates

Dontico wrote:

under iranian law, the president himself cant wage war against another country. the president is democraticaly elected to apoint ministers to run the country and to represent iran globally. it is the job of the *'supreme ruler' to wage war against another country.

*i think thats what he is called. not sure how he is appointed. my guess either through the mosques or some royal family.

It's all there on wiki, you're right of course I should refer to the Iranian establishment to include all the power players and not just the president.

Tea drinker

InFront wrote:

Stop trying to pretend it doesn't count. What I'm pointing out is that four years ago, the oppression and savagery of that 'evil dictator' Saddam was a uniting force for the democratic 'God-fearing' Americans under their leader. The leadership appealed to the patriotism of the Americans to find in itself the motivation to "liberate" Iraqis - Operation Iraqi Freedom, as it was called. It doesn't mean that Americans are Iraqi Patriots - but that they got patriotic about Iraq

Your point is well made and correct. I would however draw a parrallel between operation Iraqi freedom and the current civil war which the removal of Saddam precipitated. Both are carried out under false pretences, both are about power / money / oil. I'm sure there is a fair bit of score settling going on in Iraq, pent up over many years, the lid is off big time. In other words, US might not necessarily responsible for the root causes of the conflict, but made it almost inevitable by removing Sadman.
....Or am I wrong????

InFront

Well I don't think you are. It's not that the Americans can be held as responsible as the guy with explosives attached to his chest outside a hospital, that's not comparing like and like.
But all they had to do was look back at history, to see what happens when you upset the equilibrium in a divided society and install chaos. It's easy: further chaos ensues.
This happened in India with Muslims and the Hindus, it happened in Lebanon and Bosnia, it even happened in Ireland.

This isn't people being revisionary, the US were warned about it. Look at this article from the run up to the invasion, "The Coming Iraqi Civil War"
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030404.asp

What did he know that the White House didn't?!

oscarBravo

Tristrame wrote:

I'm not banning you on this occasion...

I am. Two weeks.

Sand

It's just seeing the USA/UK caught so wrong-footed at every step and Iran apparently in the shadows each time leads me to suspect a serious level of craftiness, at the individual fighter level it's a different thing but the ruling powers are another species.

Id have said no, when you consider the complete mess made of the immediate post war occupation by the US leadership then its not that hard for the Iranians to seem a step ahead.

Theres no doubt that the Iranians would welcome the removal of both the Taliban and Saddam, and they certainly would do little to stabilise or help the US in either country unless violence threatened to overflow into Iran, which doesnt appear likely. Id say its more likely theyre beneficiaries of US actions, rather than pulling strings though - the reasons for invading Iraq were multiple, and the US administration clearly made up its mind to go in regardless of evidence well before the invasion. Bombings of Iraq were a regular occurence back into the 90s and the sanctions were failing so there was a long term desire to "finish" the Gulf War and tie up all the loose ends - sanctions, troops deployed in SA, Saddam in power etc etc.

Civil wars are always countryman against country man, and when a country is under occupation, those who are seen as collaborating with the enemy are targets. It happened in the Irish civil war, it happened in ther American civil war, it's a matter of scale. Iraq is very fecked up right now, but that is largely the fault of U.S foreign policy going back decades

But the targeting of Sunnis and Shias is not being done on the basis of who is being seen to collaborate with "the enemy" [I assume you mean the coalition forces?]. Theres not some joint Sunni-Shia resistance targeting collaborators - theres violently opposed Sunni and Shia groups that are at each others throats. The sectarian bloodshed was unleashed on its current scale by the AQ attack on the Samara mosque.This was a highly successful [from AQ point of view] measure in a campaign designed to spark conflict between Shias and Sunnis, with the aim of defeating and destroying what AQ considers to be an impure sect outside of Islam.

Theres a little more going on in the motivations of the "subversives" than simply fighting for the wrongs done to the Nicaraguans and/or other sins of American foreign policy. Theyre fighting *for* something, not merely against something.

Stop trying to pretend it doesn't count. What I'm pointing out is that four years ago, the oppression and savagery of that 'evil dictator' Saddam was a uniting force for the democratic 'God-fearing' Americans under their leader. The leadership appealed to the patriotism of the Americans to find in itself the motivation to "liberate" Iraqis - Operation Iraqi Freedom, as it was called. It doesn't mean that Americans are Iraqi Patriots - but that they got patriotic about Iraq

Tell you what, you win. Couldnt be bothered.

I thought it was obvious i was being sarcastic. I suppose it's hard to detect that on the internet. Anyway, sorry for offending anyone with my original post.

Dont apologise, I thought you did a fantastic job:)