All-American Terrorists

College Confidential Community
21

<p>
[quote]
So you are basically equating the US Armed Forces to Al Qaeda?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody said that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
techinically, the US Armed Forces IS Al-Qaeda, after CIA'ing endless countries in the past.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let's be careful now so that we don't fall into Cusian logic where we blame Christianity for the CIA's unsavoury deeds. I don't think it's fair to blame the Iraq War on Fundies, because the neocons just tried to subtly frame it as some kind of holy war in order to sell the product, but the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld don't give a hoot about Christianity. The Iraq War was the result of cold, areligious ambition and greed, and all the god stuff was just smoke and mirrors.</p>

22

<p>nbachris, </p>

<p>You're right, I would have to agree that the leaders on both sides probably didn't have a religious reason for going to war, but religion was a good rallying cry for their base. </p>

<p>Applying your argument for the terrorists, I don't believe they attacked the U.S. because of religious reasons. They didn't attack us because we are a christian nation, or because they hate our freedom or our "immoral" culture. Logically, they attacked us because they viewed us as a threat for a different reason: we had a presence- military, economically, and politically in the middle east, and we supported Israel. (similarly, I don't believe the Israeli-muslim conflict is based on religion; we displaced thousands of people by creating the Israeli nation, and they view the suffering of Palestinians as Israel's fault. Obviously, they would harbor resentment...) I believe for them, religion was more of something that bonded them together like a nation, rather than a reason for them to attack us. We invaded and interceded with one part of the muslim population; the rest is going to come to the aid of their comrades. But, as with the Christian fundamentalists, religion was a convenient way to rally their base.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
No, I'm equating Palin and fundamentalist christians with Al Qaeda; they hire an army to fight for them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How so? The US Army doesn't operate on the orders of Megachurches, it operates on the orders of the Commander in Chief. Unless you are referring to a different army...</p>

<p>
[quote]
They believe it's God's mission and it's "His Will" to kill the enemy. How is that different from islamic terrorists, except the christians have enough money so that they don't have to do the dirty work?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, who is "they"? If you are referring to Christian soldiers, then yes, some may believe that. This is nothing new; throughout history (even with soldiers from Christian nations going against soldiers from other Christian nations), soldiers have always thought that God was on their side. The difference is that "killing the enemy" means just that, killing the enemy. It would be the same prayer, no matter who they were fighting against (ie Russia for example). It doesn't mean killing as many men, women, and children as humanly possible (which the terrorists try to do), nor does it mean trying to impose a fundamentalist Christian government in a nation (as far as I can tell, the Government being set up in Baghdad is quite Muslim).</p>

<p>Furthermore, there are plenty of atheist, Jewish, Muslim etc members of the US Armed forces.</p>

<p>
[quote]
techinically, the US Armed Forces IS Al-Qaeda, after CIA'ing endless countries in the past.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you believe that, technically you are an idiot.</p>

24

<p>^actually, i think YOU are the idiot because you don't see that the armed forces have the same objective of ousting other countries. it has done this plenty times in latin america, europe and the middle east. so, go learn about something in sociology before you insult someone else and think you are all right. al-qaeda's paradigm can easily be broadened to understand the nature of HEGEMONY. do you know what we did in abu ghraib and guantanamo bay? what did we do in vietnam? why are we still in iraq after saddam's fall? do you know who john yoo is? what about general taguba and his decision? idiot, obviously not! we have had the same objective of al-qaeida in interfering in other countries! sure we are not the same exact army but we have an isomorphic relationship! lol you can't think philosophically or analytically go back to college dude.</p>

25

<p>STOP!</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The US military follows the orders of civilian leadership. That is the way we work. Yes, some military members have commited crimes (i.e. Abu Ghraib, Me Lai, etc). Those individuals were prosecuted under the UCMJ for their crimes.</p></li>
<li><p>The US military's objective is to defend the Constitution and follow the lawful orders provided by civilian leadership. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>If you want to go on about ______ "hiring" the military to spread fundamentalist Christian extremism, go ahead. I will laugh. It shows me how uninformed you really are.</p>

26

<p>you get the point, we operate in a way that fits US INTERESTS. Don't second guess me I studied international law and human rights in college and the US military loves regional hegemony. i don't care if its christian or not it is a FACT. this shows how uninformed you are. we share an isomorphic relationship with al-qaeda; i guess you don't know what that means go look it up, shows me you are uneducated.</p>

<p>i'm not saying the US is the nastiest country in the world but we have our own faults. just look at the bush administration and our current neocon government. since when did protecting the US constitution equate with freeing messed up countries? lol. man up and face the facts!</p>

27

<p>Cuse and Raimus, </p>

<p>The American people elected a Christian fundamentalist who started this war, who uses the same rhetoric as Al Quaeda. No, the army is not controlled by the Mega Churches. But fundamentalists and others elected a Christian fundamentalist into office, and they may do so again this year. </p>

<p>I am not equating the army with Al Quaeda. The army is simply the tool of the christian fundamentalists. </p>

<p>Cuse, you admit that both fundamentalist sides use God as an excuse for violence (which goes against both religions). But on your other point, I'm quite sure that Christian fundamentalist have killed more people (in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terrorists) than Al Quaeda has. And I don't agree with you that the aim of Al Quaeda is to kill as many people as possible. </p>

<p>Raimus,
The army is controlled by Christian fundamentalists, currently. And please explain to me how Iraq had anything to do with defending the constitution or our freedoms; they had no connections to Al Quaeda, no WMD's, and their dictator was a cruel as the countless other dictators around the world. It was a war of aggression. At least under Saddam, the Iraqis had stability. Do you really believe that Iraq will be stable when we pull out, whether it be next year, a decade, or a century from now? There are too many disparate groups put together into one country. It needs a strong man, or the country needs to be split up.</p>

28

<p>I never said the military doesn't protect US interests. That is what the elected government orders us to do, quite often. Whether military leaders agree or disagree with this philosophy is largely irrelevant, as they are legally obligated to follow all legal orders.</p>

<p>Unless the President or Sec. Def. orders the military to do something which is clearly illegal, the military is obligated to comply.</p>

<p>AMB, do you mean from within, or from elected leadership?<br>
Iraq was about keeping legitimacy and protecting US interests. Personally, I am quite happy to see Sadam gone. However, the US tried to institute an almost purely military solution to a political problem (power vacuum) in Iraq. We were inadequately prepared for the unconventional warfare we found ourselves engaged in. We could leave Iraq as a stable, democratic nation, but that would likely require at least a decade of work. I do not believe the American people or the elected government would commit to that scenario. So, I believe we will leave Iraq as an unstable nation. My opinion, anyway.</p>

29

<p>I don't have a problem with the army or the bureaucracy. They're tools of the elected leadership. My problem is with the elected leadership- the ones who who want to kill in God's name, then call the enemy "evil" for doing the same thing. The military is simply following their orders, which they legally have to.</p>

30

<p>The Fundies may have elected Bush, but they don't have control over his policy or his administration. To blame the Iraq War on Christianity is like blaming the Cultural Revolution on atheism.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
The American people elected a Christian fundamentalist who started this war, who uses the same rhetoric as Al Quaeda. No, the army is not controlled by the Mega Churches. But fundamentalists and others elected a Christian fundamentalist into office, and they may do so again this year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How does he use the same rhetoric as Al Qaeda? And who cares if Bush is a Christian or not...was the military an arm of Catholic aggression under JFK?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Cuse, you admit that both fundamentalist sides use God as an excuse for violence (which goes against both religions).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Americans (with perhaps a few exceptions) don't use religion as an excuse. I have been to two of our military bases in the Middle East and attended religious services there. Prayers were generally, "Please keep us safe" and NEVER "Please let us kill these infidel heathens". American soldiers aren't killing in the name of any religion-they are fighting for their government, and also the Iraqi people. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But on your other point, I'm quite sure that Christian fundamentalist have killed more people (in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terrorists) than Al Quaeda has.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I disagree. Christian fundamentalists aren't doing the killing; soldiers are. And there is a difference in the people who are being killed. Our soldiers are targeting the insurgency and nothing else. They have explicit orders to avoid civilian casualties. For Al Qaeda in Iraq, both soldiers and civilians are open game and a bigger civilian body count actually benefits them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And I don't agree with you that the aim of Al Quaeda is to kill as many people as possible.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Obviously they have other goals as well, but you can't deny that if Al Qaeda could somehow suitcase nuke an American city like New York or LA they wouldn't hesitate. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The army is controlled by Christian fundamentalists, currently.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, it isn't. It is controlled by Generals, Pentagon officials, the Commander in Chief and the current government. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And please explain to me how Iraq had anything to do with defending the constitution or our freedoms; they had no connections to Al Quaeda, no WMD's, and their dictator was a cruel as the countless other dictators around the world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, we thought that Iraq had WMDs. We were wrong. After the **** started to hit the fan in Iraq, however, Al Qaeda saw its chance and has repeatedly stated that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror. Failure in Iraq would give Al Qaeda an Afghanistan-type haven which in turn would be detrimental to us all.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
you get the point, we operate in a way that fits US INTERESTS. Don't second guess me I studied international law and human rights in college and the US military loves regional hegemony. i don't care if its christian or not it is a FACT. this shows how uninformed you are. we share an isomorphic relationship with al-qaeda; i guess you don't know what that means go look it up, shows me you are uneducated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If whatever college you went to taught you that the US Army is the same thing as Al Qaeda then my guess is it will probably drop a few spots in the next US News Rankings.</p>

<p>Of course the US Military has made some mistakes. But it is not even close to being an Al-Qaeda type organization. Anyone can see that. One of our military's main goals is to minimize civilian casualties; Al Qaeda has the opposite goal. My father was a career military doctor; it was his duty to try and save the lives of American soldiers as well as their enemies and military civilians as well. If you are a wounded American and captured by Al Qaeda, good luck.</p>

<p>Our military is trying to promote stability in the world and is also the world's largest humanitarian organization. Al Qaeda is one of the world's largest problems.</p>

33

<p>Have you ever heard a speech by Bush or Palin? They both say we're on God's mission- and obviously, since our mission wasn't self-defence, it was aggression- our mission was to kill people. </p>

<p>For some reason you are thinking I'm equating the military with Al Quaeda- they're not. I equate the military with the bombs that terrorist set off- both tools. Again, I'm not talking about what the people in the army use religion for. I don't blame them, and I don't care what they use religion for. I'm concerned with our elected leaders and the fundamentalist voting population. </p>

<p>When I said the Christian fundamentalists are doing the killing, I mean that they authorized and pushed for a war of aggression. They are responsible for the thousands of Iraqi and American deaths, not the soldiers. As for civilian casualties, this must be the first war in history where tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of civilians were not killed in the crossfire. </p>

<p>As for Al Quaeda, of course they would use a suit case nuke. But that would be more for the terror aspect; they want to influence what we do; they don't think we have the stomach for seeing our fellow citizens killed. Ultimately, they want us out of the middle east. </p>

<p>The Generals, Pentagon, etc handle the strategy, tactics, and daily running of the war. I was talking about the Christian fundamentalists- the elected leaders and the voting public-who pushed for the war to start and who want it to persist. </p>

<p>We did not think that Iraq had WMD's. It turned out that we had no evidence they had WMD's: either someone in the administration falsified the information, or we went into a war without proper proof. Either way, it's a war of aggression. </p>

<p>We created most of the terrorists in Iraq by invading the country. Most of them probably don't view themselves as terrorists-they think they're freedom fighters. How do you think we can win the war in Iraq? There will always be "terrorists" in Iraq as long as a foreign power is occupying their country.</p>

34

<p>The only reason they're beating the **** out of us over there is because we walked into their country and started blowing up innocent men, women, and children and sat on our couches watching it on TV as if it were a movie.</p>

35

<p>I personally don't care about Christian crusades 500 years ago. I do care about fundamentalist Islam which is directly opposed to the best virtues of Western civilization. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc. Just basic stuff, really.</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
The only reason they're beating the **** out of us over there is because we walked into their country and started blowing up innocent men, women, and children and sat on our couches watching it on TV as if it were a movie.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you really that ignorant? First of all, they aren't beating anything out of us. Secondly, the US military does not target civilians. Al Qaeda does. I don't know where you have been for the past 8 years, but you are obviously either grievously misinformed or just plain ignorant. Thankfully, both can be cured...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Have you ever heard a speech by Bush or Palin? They both say we're on God's mission- and obviously, since our mission wasn't self-defence, it was aggression- our mission was to kill people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Quotes please? And I would like to think our mission is about a little more than just "killing people". </p>

<p>
[quote]
When I said the Christian fundamentalists are doing the killing, I mean that they authorized and pushed for a war of aggression. They are responsible for the thousands of Iraqi and American deaths, not the soldiers. As for civilian casualties, this must be the first war in history where tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of civilians were not killed in the crossfire.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My mistake; I guess I misunderstood you. I don't particularly agree with this notion either, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
I do care about fundamentalist Islam which is directly opposed to the best virtues of Western civilization. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc. Just basic stuff, really.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fundamentalist Christianity is against a lot of freedoms too. </p>

<p>And Fundamentalist Islam is not so much against "Western civilization" as it is against political and economic hegemony by America and its allies.</p>

38

<p>cuse, I go to a nationally ranked university, higher than you will ever get to. you just gave me a confabulated response without paying heed to what i specifically said. i said we operate in a fashion that is (i am not going to say that word again since you will never get it) with al-qaeda, but not the same. did i say the same, mister? i said we have a certain relationship that is driven by a goal to establish something beyond the norm. you obviously don't know what this means.</p>

<p>again, europe views us worse than al-qaeda. the Europeans HATE US. i'm not taking any sides, i am just giving the external perspective of this country. </p>

<p>
[quote]
One of our military's main goals is to minimize civilian casualties; Al Qaeda has the opposite goal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>lol, that explains the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki then. we chose to bomb that nation and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. war was imminent but we had options. there are still people who are suffering from radioactive damage. and we began a PREVENTIVE WAR with iraq and knew ahead of time that civilians would be very high-risk. the civilian argument is ephemeral for military objectives shared by the US AND Al-Qaeda. period.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
europe views us worse than al-qaeda. the Europeans HATE US.

[/quote]
Source?...or should I just take your word for it? That is a big claim to make, without evidence to back it.</p>

<p>You do realize the casualty estimates for the invasion of mainland Japan were in the millions, don't you? Let's look at the choices 1. We use the bomb. Several hundred thousand Japanese civilians die. 2. We invade. Up to a million Americans and 4-6 million Japanese die. Which is the better solution? I would say, Truman made the right choice.</p>

<p>
[quote]
civilian argument is ephemeral for military objectives shared by the US AND Al-Qaeda

[/quote]
No. Legitimacy and public opinion is the battlefield. The winning over the civilian population (and the government they choose) IS the objective. By fear or love, whomever can exert more influence over the population and government becomes the "winner."</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
Legitimacy and public opinion is the battlefield. The winning over the civilian population (and the government they choose) IS the objective. By fear or love, whomever can exert more influence over the population and government becomes the "winner."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>wrong. civilian concerns are of little to no interest to military objectives that the aggressor has. what is al-qaeda? they are NOT states, the US military is a state, yet what do they have in common? the US knew well ahead of time that civilians would be very high-risk since it launched its preventive war in iraq, as did al-qaeda when it crashed in the towers. this is EASILY understood and applied in conventional warfare. do you know who taguba is? a bona-fide war hero and if the US military made his decision as well then war crimes in iraq would be over. "the winning over the civilian population is the objective" -- the civilian population is INELUCTABLY part of the objective, period.</p>

<p>donald trump said the europeans hate us in an interview about the post 9/11 war because he said he did a lot of business there and i absolutely take his word for it. he also mentioned that after 9/11 we had the best opportunity to be the country that others loved for the first time, and after we invaded iraq, we blew it. absolutely. i take it you don't oppose the iraq war, not that you don't have to but whatever you say its an illegal war.</p>