Support NeoGAF

[human5892]

I don't know how many bazillion times I have to reiterate this, but the point is that THEY ARE talking about the Ottoman Empire, etc. here.

That's really the first time you stated that point at all, so I guess the answer to your question is, zero. You have to reiterate it zero times.

You seem incapable of grasping the reality that any concern about US support for Israel, "Middle East dictators" or globalization/progressivism in general, is the icing, not the cake.

Now wait a second. You previously stated:

AQ is a reactionary group essentially fighting against social, political, and religious progress, as well as simply the march of time which has altered the geopolitical landscape since what they believe were Islam's glory days--progress which the West as a whole, and America in specific, represent.

...but now you're saying fighting against progressivism is the icing, not the cake? And that the real reason we are seeing fighting today is because of anger over the displacement of land back in the days of the Ottoman empire? Sorry, but I find it far more feasible that recent Western intrusions are to blame...as do, apparently, the professors I've had in my coursework where I got my background in this area of knowledge, since most of my reasoning in this thread comes from what I have been taught and read about in my textbooks.

 

[Lil' Dice]

Just curious, have there been any attacks on western countries not supporting the war in Iraq?
Just curious....

Anyone?
I'm genuinely curious....

 

[xsarien]

You said, "you can't force feed democracy to people." There are examples of it happening. Therefore you are wrong.

You went on to backtrack [edit: to imply], oh, I meant it's wrong for foreign powers to reshape other people's governments; which is different than your initial statement, and an opinion in any case. So please.

I was pretty clear in post #159 where I said that the difference was that the Revolutionary War was a completely internal affair until France started taking our side. That's not backtracking, that's me daring to assume even a basic knowledge of U.S. history.

 

[Leon]

At least this time give him a break - he's from UK.

That's precisely the kind of thinking that re-elected Bush.

 

[Mercury Fred]

The fact that you're trying to compare Nazi Germany, a country responsible for killing millions of people and condeming entire races to the Bush administration because they happen to be against gay marrige is so absurd it wouldn't be worth discussing if I wasn't so bored here at work.

What a surprise that you're cherry picking my points so as to discount the entire argument. Classic.

 

[APF]

That's really the first time you stated that point at all, so I guess the answer to your question is, zero. You have to reiterate it zero times.

That's been what I've been saying in every one of my responses [EDIT: that what is driving AQ philosophically is far deeper than reactionism current US policy]. So stop trolling me.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Your history books must have sucked.

I think I just said that no history book I have read SUPPORTS (as in APPROVES) what the American government did to the native people.

So, how again is it ok to rationalize what today's terrorists are doing?

 

[Baconäger]

What a surprise that you're cherry picking my points so as to discount the entire argument. Classic.

Your argument is really fucking stupid and poor.

The Bush administration and nazi German aren't the same fucking thing. They aren't even in the same same league. It aint even the same fucking sport.

 

[Ryck]

Anyone?
I'm genuinely curious....

Yes they attacked Guatamala.......no....wow I hadn't even thought of that..

 

[Ryck]

DP

 

[Ryck]

TP!@

 

[xsarien]

I think I just said that no history book I have read SUPPORTS (as in APPROVES) what the American government did to the native people.

History books don't often voice an opinion, it's what makes a large majority of them pretty fucking boring.

So, how again is it ok to rationalize what today's terrorists are doing?

No one's rationalizing, I'm certainly not. But putting today's terrorists into a historical context is important, as it shows that their actions aren't so new; trying to understand why they do what they do is to a degree rationalizing, but that's not necessarily bad. A rationalization can still be completely illogical and immoral. But at least acknowledging it is important.

"Terrorist" is a matter of opinion, they're often called "Freedom Fighters" in certain parts of the mid-east for obvious reasons.

 

[ToxicAdam]

What a surprise that you're cherry picking my points so as to discount the entire argument. Classic.

When you say something stupid, it detracts any other good points you may make. I know this because it's my forte'.

 

[APF]

"Terrorist" is a matter of opinion, they're often called "Freedom Fighters" in certain parts of the mid-east for obvious reasons.

Someone killing cops to escape from jail is also technically a "freedom fighter." Perhaps the real lesson is that "freedom fighter" as a term is broadly used to justify bad behavior, and often attributed to people who only fight for certain freedoms, often wanting freedoms for themselves but at the expense of others.

 

[TheDuce22]

We invaded iraq and afganistan to ensure the war on terror was not fought in our country. We gave the terrorists a front to fight on. The soldiers/iraqis are paying for it instead of american civilians. Maybe it didnt work as well as they had hoped but the fact is SOMETHING had to be done.

 

[xsarien]

Someone killing cops to escape from jail is also technically a "freedom fighter." Perhaps the real lesson is that "freedom fighter" as a term is broadly used to justify bad behavior, and often attributed to people who only fight for certain freedoms, often wanting freedoms for themselves but at the expense of others.

No, someone escaping from prison is called an "escaped inmate," as he or she is fighting for no one's freedom but their own. Freedom Fighters, Terrorists...whatever you wish to call them. They're often very vocal about how they want their actions to be larger plays in a struggle to give "their people" a voice/change/[insert new thing here]. Whether those goals are reasonable, and whether their tactics are moral is obviously a seperate issue.

We invaded iraq and afganistan to ensure the war on terror was not fought in our country. We gave the terrorists a front to fight on. The soldiers/iraqis are paying for it instead of american civilians. Maybe it didnt work as well as they had hoped but the fact is SOMETHING had to be done.

Yes, because it's obviously working.

 

[cubicle47b]

I love how 90% of the people in political threads are complete assholes who think they're always right and never listen to anyone else (and why would they when everyone else is obviously stupid). *big ass motherfucking rolleyes*

 

[Mercury Fred]

The Bush administration and nazi German aren't the same fucking thing.

At what point did comparing one thing to another become arguing that they're the same thing? Just curious if you could enlighten me. Also, if you could point out where I said they were exactly the same thing, that would be wonderful, thanks. Again, more classic tactics from you. Bravo.

 

[Shig]

Whatever their motivations, it pisses me off that because of these assholes My religion will be associated with terrorism and obviously then People like cockles will just use genralizations to justify their hate.

Are a huge amount of prominent Muslim leaders making it widely known that they condemn these fundamentalists and their attacks? For the most part, I see silence. And abscence of disapproval is seen by many as approval.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

 

[vitaflo]

I don't understand why the terrorists would choose to attack now. Support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low. If they want to force the western troops out of Iraq this is a stupid way to do it. These attacks will only serve to strengthen American and British resolve. They have to know that. Right?

That's what they want. You can't recruit new people into your terrorist organization if there's no conflict to get people motivated to join you. They WANT there to be conflict and retaliation for their actions so that they can recruit more members. Especially a war like Iraq where innocent people are involved.

 

[xsarien]

Are a huge amount of prominent Muslim leaders making it widely known that they condemn these fundamentalists and their attacks? For the most part, I see silence. And abscence of disapproval is seen by many as approval.

And while we're flinging about conspiracy theories that simply must be true, how about those seven Jew bankers?

 

[heidern]

Are a huge amount of prominent Muslim leaders making it widely known that they condemn these fundamentalists and their attacks? For the most part, I see silence. And abscence of disapproval is seen by many as approval.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

Will this story do:

said he utterly condemned the attacks.

"We are simply appalled and want to express our deepest condolences to the families.

"These terrorists, these evil peoplewant to demoralise us as a nation and divide us.

"All of must unite in helping the police to hunt these murderers down."

 

[Excess Poo Flakes]

700 people killed by a bomb, and the majority of responses of GAF are "fuck bush USA sucks omfg wtf iraq" instead of sympathy!? Typical.

That said, my prayers with the families of the killed.

 

[Baconäger]

At what point did comparing one thing to another become arguing that they're the same thing? Just curious if you could enlighten me. Also, if you could point out where I said they were exactly the same thing, that would be wonderful, thanks. Again, more classic tactics from you. Bravo.

It was a sequence just from popular a movie...

And by comparing them you're trying to use the stigma of Nazi Germany (which is bad, because they killed millions of people) to push your agenda. When Bush starts taking people from their houses in the middle of the night and sending them to death camps, condemning entire races to their deaths, or even becomes a fucking dictator, then you can compare him to Hitler and be taken seriously.

I've seen more Hitler/Bush comparisons than I have Hussein/Hitler comparisons, which is odd considering he was another dictator that murdered a bunch of his own citizens and threw them in mass graves. Perhaps he needed more propaganda.

 

[Baconäger]

700 people killed by a bomb, and the majority of responses of GAF are "fuck bush USA sucks omfg wtf iraq" instead of sympathy!? Typical.

That said, my prayers with the families of the killed.

You should probably check the numbers again.

 

[xsarien]

700 people killed by a bomb, and the majority of responses of GAF are "fuck bush USA sucks omfg wtf iraq" instead of sympathy!? Typical.

That said, my prayers with the families of the killed.

In case you didn't notice, this thread was created to focus on the politics, the whys, the hows, and the whos.

There's a more general, politics-free thread stickied.

 

[LakeEarth]

700 people injured by a bomb

Fixed. 37 dead.

 

[APF]

No, someone escaping from prison is called an "escaped inmate," as he or she is fighting for no one's freedom but their own.

One man's escaped inmate is another man's freedom fighter. After all, the justice system is inherently racist and corrupt, and fighting against that injustice is really striking a blow for all people who don't want to live under the iron fist of oppression.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

No, try reading it again. I'm comparing the [Persian Gulf War], the 12 year pause, and the [Iraqi War] to the position of many that [World War 1] and [World War 2] are infact one conflict seperated by a Clausewitzian pause instigated by politic.

Nowhere am I equating Nazi Germany with Iraq in any way, shape, or form. So yes, I called you stupid, perhaps it wasn't premature.

And the second point I'm not even going to get into...



Your position is only sustainable when you're in a position of ignorance/lack of data. The United States doesn't actively hunt and kill civilians; Terrorists, like al-Qaeda, do. The United States doesn't have doctrine advocating their death, al-Qaeda does.

This is unambiguious in serious discussion, for example, the Roman Catholic Church makes just such a distinction over intent in allowing for conflict under the principles Of Jus In Bello.

Just to be clear, that second quote was not from me.


I'll make this as simple as possible, since I think you're obfuscating.

The whole of my argument is

Me = angry
Reason? Terrorism.
Additional anger: directed at my own gov't's lack of action post 9/11
exacerbated by: claiming to be fighting terrorism in war I don't agree with. Worse, using that as a justification for the war in the first place.

[I haven't gotten into my reasons to oppose the war in Iraq, or why I called it stupid. It's actually a smart war for one of the reasons you posit-- altering the political landscape of the region-- I just don't agree idealogically with that reason to go to war. That's more interesting to debate than whether the 9/11 Commission's tentative link between Iraq and bin Laden merits a war, since that would be a justifaction at best, and not the actual reason to be there.

My biggest problem with you analysis is that you fall into the same trap most antiwar people do, arguing the ideology rather than the more likely reasons nations war. Your use of "fanatical" to describe the Middle East shows that. Nations go to war for their interests. We are in Iraq bacuase it is in our interests to have another country politically and ecomonically friendly to us there, and there are military and economic benefits to the action. Period. I disagree with the war not because of a value judgment so much as becuase in the bigger picture, I believe the political costs to the US are greater than the gains, and the I believe the economic benefits are going to be such that they will not have substantial benefits to the general polulace of the US or Iraq, but rather to smaller private interests. That last statement is one I would not go to bat over, as it is not well-informed, although it does match our country's record of intervention in other parts of the world. ]

But all that is beside the fact. I am pissed becuase we're not doing what we should be to deal with Al Queda, apparently, while our government is saying that we are, by being in Iraq. Like any number of people, I don't like being lied to.

I take it be "not dealing with the second point" that you disagree, but I remain unconvinved that our actions in Iraq have done anything to reduce terrorism or that we were really there for that reason in the first place.

 

[xsarien]

One man's escaped inmate is another man's freedom fighter. After all, the justice system is inherently racist and corrupt, and fighting against that injustice is really striking a blow for all people who don't want to live under the iron fist of oppression.

You cannot possibly compare people living under oppression due to blatant human rights issues to inmates who break laws that are designed to protect people and, largely, grant rights.

 

[APF]

You cannot possibly compare people living under oppression due to blatant human rights issues to inmates who break laws that are designed to protect people and, largely, grant rights.

You're trying to assert a comparison between people fighting for human rights and terrorists trying to impose regressive theocratic rule upon most-if-not-all of the world. I'm saying that to do so is a mistake.

 

[xsarien]

You're trying to assert a comparison between people fighting for human rights and terrorists trying to impose regressive theocratic rule upon most-if-not-all of the world.

And you just assuming that's the goal of every terrorist organization in the world is pretty damned naive.

 

[Shig]

Will this story do:

a huge amount of prominent Muslim leaders

I know there are a good amount who do speak out. But not enough, not nearly enough.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

xsarien: I think it's a reasonable supposition, given Al Queda's proclamations and stance toward the Saudi government.

 

[APF]

And you just assuming that's the goal of every terrorist organization in the world is pretty damned naive.

You're broadening who I'm talking about just a bit, but you also painted "today's terrorists" with the same brush. So if I'm naive by responding to your characterization, surely you're all the more naive by responding the way you did, saying: "they're often called 'Freedom Fighters' in certain parts of the mid-east for obvious reasons."

 

[Vieo]

I'm a democrat and believe the war in Iraq was unjustified.

That being said, preventing terrorism *must* be a priority of any civilized country. People blaming Bush or Blair for civilian casualties due to terrorist attacks are just plain wrong. Terrorists don't see "Republican" or "Democrat," they see America. They see Britain. Etc.

Would this attack have happened without the war in Iraq? Probably not...I think something much worse would have happened. Maybe in the UK...maybe not. But damnit, we're all people -- who cares what country you live in.

I still blame Bush and those that allowed him to invade Iraq. Can't tell me this isn't partly Bush's fault. As history has proven, the Middle East is a beehive. If you go whacking a beehive with a stick, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going to happen next.


Next time, vote Ralph Nader, bitches!

 

[xsarien]

You're broadening who I'm talking about just a bit, but you also painted "today's terrorists" with the same brush. So if I'm naive by responding to your characterization, surely you're all the more naive by responding the way you did, saying: "they're often called 'Freedom Fighters' in certain parts of the mid-east for obvious reasons."

I think it should've been obvious that I was speaking of specific groups in that region, whether it be Hamas, the various independent-minded terrorists who see fit to blow up busses in Israel, or Al-Qaeda's supporters, who point to political double-standards on the part of the U.S. If I was talking about the likes of ETA or the IRA, I wouldn't have been so deliberate in my wording.

Modern terrorism isn't about religion, no matter what the group leaders claim. It's about political power and influence. Religion is a catch-all shield that's used to both protect them from criticism and recruit the narrow-minded who think that as long as they're acting under the will of their God, then everything's just hunky-dorey.

 

[bob_arctor]

You're broadening who I'm talking about just a bit, but you also painted "today's terrorists" with the same brush. So if I'm naive by responding to your characterization, surely you're all the more naive by responding the way you did, saying: "they're often called 'Freedom Fighters' in certain parts of the mid-east for obvious reasons."

You're quite the pain in the ass, eh? Good use of the italic, btw. Very irritating.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I still blame Bush and those that allowed him to invade Iraq. Can't tell me this isn't partly Bush's fault. As history has proven, the Middle East is a beehive. If you go whacking a beehive with a stick, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going to happen next.


Next time, vote Ralph Nader, bitches!

First: see above for my opinon of the war.

But this is an ignorant statement. It overlooks the fact that there was terrorism before 9/11 ('94 WTC) on our shores, and there was plenty of terrorist activity post 9/11 pre-invasion.

The war in Iraq is not about terrorism, and it doesn't have much effect *on* terrorism.

(And I can't believe people think that the terrorists are all busy in Iraq now, either. What a ridiculous rationalization for the war once the WMD and terrorist link aspects turned out wrong.)

 

[heidern]

a huge amount of prominent Muslim leaders

I know there are a good amount who do speak out. But not enough, not nearly enough.

You assume too much. There simply aren't a huge amount of prominent Muslim leaders. What Muslim leaders there are, will condemn what's happened, but it is very unlikely they will get much coverage since no one knows them. The media would rather listen to the likes of the police commissioner and Rudolph Giuliani, that's just how it is.

 

[bob_arctor]

(And I can't believe people think that the terrorists are all busy in Iraq now, either. What a ridiculous rationalization for the war once the WMD and terrorist link aspects turned out wrong.)

The "Flytrap" theory? Nah, that's the best one yet. Good name at least. Though Bush's "we fight them there so we won't fight them here" didn't cover London unfortunately. I actually don't know of anyone, personally, that subscribes to that inane bullshit "logic". I guess the second another attack hits us here in the U.S., Bush has to peddle something new. Which is both sad and maddening all at once. Sad that I think it's a given that another attack will happen eventually and maddening that if said attack does occur, the polarization/insanity that this administration has caused will allow a small piece of me to whisper "Told ya so". *Shakes head*

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Killing innocents to gain access to oil sources is terrorism too, according to your logic. If you agree that USA is a terrorist nation, I'll agree that Palestinians are terrorists. And even then Palestinians are killing for their freedom. What is USA killing for? Oil? Great motivation.

You're wrong on multiple levels.

1 - Note my definition was "suicide bombing of civilians = terrorism" (woo woo, I solved that pesky is/are thing.) Unless American troops are going kamikaze, my definition does not logically include militaty actions which result in tragic civilian deaths.

2 - It was intended, and the plain reading of my statement supports, that "suicide bombing of civilians" implies an intentional targeting of civilians. Civilian deaths resulting from targeting legitimate military targets is tragic and needs to be minimized as much as possible, but it isn't terrorism. It's war.

3 - Given that oil is topping $60/barrel, if the US "killed for oil", it did a spectacularly bad job of it.

 

[APF]

Modern terrorism isn't about religion, no matter what the group leaders claim. It's about political power and influence.

It is and it isn't. To assert that AQ isn't motivated by religious-based determinism, or that they don't conflate political and religious power-and-influence, is just as naive as asserting that jihad against the US is a necessary component of devoted Islam, or that the US conflict against Islamist terrorist organizations is really a religious war against all Muslims. In any case, you're flailing wildly from one subject to another here. Democracy can be imposed on people, and "freedom fighters" is a term often misapplied to people not really philosophically devoted to the cause of freedom. That's all I wanted to say.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

The "leave them alone and they won't bother us" approach was already tried. You saw were it got us.

We weren't leaving the Mideast alone before 9/11 though.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

We weren't leaving the Mideast alone before 9/11 though.

Doesn't matter. We're the big dogs, we're going to get attacked by terrorists. Comes with being the wealtiest and most powerful.

 

[GSG Flash]

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but all I have to say is I fucking hate al qaeda.

They can go screw themselves to hell. I don't even know why they call themselves muslims because everything they do goes against our teachings. On top of killing innocent people they give every muslim in the world a bad name. It's pathetic how they call themselves heroes because any kind of bombing, whether it be suicide or whatever, is a cowardly move.

All I have to say is Al Qaeda can go fuck themselves.

 

[xsarien]

It is and it isn't. To assert that AQ isn't motivated by religious-based determinism, or that they don't conflate political and religious power-and-influence, is just as naive as asserting that jihad against the US is a necessary component of devoted Islam, or that the US conflict against Islamist terrorist organizations is really a religious war against all Muslims.

It's pretty obvious that Al-Qaeda, and most Islamic terrorist groups mix religion and politics into one to fuel their agendas, but simply stating that "God is telling me this is right" doesn't, as a whole, count as religious determinism. It transcends that and moves straight to "Self-Appointed Loony Tune." Al-Qaeda and groups like it have about as much to do with traditional Islam as a cheeseburger stand at a Bar Mitzvah.

In any case, you're flailing wildly from one subject to another here.

Because the topics in this thread are flailing wildly from one subject to another, also because none of them are necessarily mutually exclusive.

Democracy can be imposed on people,

I'd like to see you back that up, as our little experiment on this very issue seems to be failing miserably in Iraq. Thinking Russia? Democracy came about there without any kind of military force on our part.

and "freedom fighters" is a term often misapplied to people not really philosophically devoted to the cause of freedom.

Food for thought, and admittedly a question often posed. I find it fun to ask because it makes my Republican friends kind of cringe and walk off in a huff, and that amuses me: The American Revolution happens today, are we freedom fighters or terrorists?

 

[fortified_concept]

You're wrong on multiple levels.

1 - Note my definition was "suicide bombing of civilians = terrorism" (woo woo, I solved that pesky is/are thing.) Unless American troops are going kamikaze, my definition does not logically include militaty actions which result in tragic civilian deaths.

2 - It was intended, and the plain reading of my statement supports, that "suicide bombing of civilians" implies an intentional targeting of civilians. Civilian deaths resulting from targeting legitimate military targets is tragic and needs to be minimized as much as possible, but it isn't terrorism. It's war.

3 - Given that oil is topping $60/barrel, if the US "killed for oil", it did a spectacularly bad job of it.

OK I misread your post. I have a question though: Who gave you the right of defining what's terrorism and what's not? You've restricted the definition of terrorism exactly the way the US goverment has, and you're basing your whole argument according to it. The ones that you call terrorists (Palestinians) have killed hundrends for their freedom. The ones that I call terrorists have killed 20,000-100,000 people in a single war (I'm not even gonna start counting the unjustified wars USA has started - it'd be a huge post) for the corporate profit. I don't give a shit what was the way they were killed or how the US goverment and the US media define terrorism, all I care is how many were killed and why.

 

[siamesedreamer]

All the "blame America first" fucks make me want to vomit.

 

[APF]

It's pretty obvious that Al-Qaeda, and most Islamic terrorist groups mix religion and politics into one to fuel their agendas, but simply stating that "God is telling me this is right" doesn't, as a whole, count as religious determinism. It transcends that and moves straight to "Self-Appointed Loony Tune." Al-Qaeda and groups like it have about as much to do with traditional Islam as a cheeseburger stand at a Bar Mitzvah.

I think that dismissing AQ as a bunch of loonies who "simply [state] that 'God is telling me this is right,'" is at best a gross caricature of who they are and what drives their organization. But I guess you feel it's better to demonize your enemies than to try and understand them?

The American Revolution happens today, are we freedom fighters or terrorists?

It's a useless question, but ultimately it depends on the tactics and motivations for our actions that we use. I would say that obviously, the American Revolutionaries were deeply conflicted about the Revolution itself, and were also deeply committed to the cause of freedom--not just independence--as is clearly evident by the aftermath of that conflict.

[EDIT: I also find it sad that you feel only your political enemies, the dreaded Republicans, could object to the idea of AQ being considered "freedom fighters" for "obvious reasons." I think it casts a horrible light on where you are coming from, philosophically]