All-American Terrorists

College Confidential Community
41

<p>What do you assess are al-qaeda's military objectives? The US military is not a state. It is an instrument of the United States. When you say "civilians would be very high-risk," do you mean gaining their support/compliance is important, or that there is a high risk of civilian casualties? </p>

<p>Taguba lost his career by publicly criticizing the President. I don't know how much of a difference his criticism made, but he certainly lost most of his ability to influence military actions.</p>

<p>What do you see as the US objective in Iraq? I do not see how we will be able to leave the country in a stable situation, if we cannot set up a respected government there. We despirately need cooperation, which comes from having at least a certain amount of respect/loyalty from the population. If they will not work with us, we have almost no chance of helping to create a successful government there.</p>

<p>PS. I admit, my vocabulary is not as large as yours. Now, can we stick to simple and precise language, to reduce the chances of misunderstanding?</p>

42

<p>Raimus, </p>

<p>I agree with you that it is ideal to set up a stable government in Iraq. But I believe that objective is impossible; the very fact that we occupy land in the middle east not only creates the majority of terrorists, who call themselves freedom-fighters, but occupation in general created much of our problems with the terrorists. Our intervention in Lebanon in the Reagan years, our occupation of the holy land in Saudi Arabia in the 90's, our supplying of Israel with weapons, and our current occupation of Iraq caused the terrorists to hate us. They decided to attack us not because they hate what we stand for, or because they hate our culture, our freedoms, etc. They attack us because we are politically and militarily involved in the middle east, and they want us out. The terrorist situation will never be over as long as we are in the middle east and support Israel.</p>

<p>As long as we are in Iraq, I think it is impossible for a stable government to form. Plus, many of the problems in Iraq are due to European colonial powers creating the Iraqi national boundaries way back when. They grouped religious sects and ethnic groups together who hate each other. The only man who was able to get them to live peacefully together was Saddam- by threat of force.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
cuse, I go to a nationally ranked university, higher than you will ever get to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nationally ranked? Most universities are nationally ranked in some way...are you trying to say top 25? Not that it even matters...unlike a lot of people on CC, I'm not going to knock on you if you don't go to an ivy. </p>

<p>And I go to a very good school as well, but I'm not going to bring that into the debate because I don't think it matters.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes. Your quote-</p>

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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Source? I seriously doubt that. Al Qaeda has killed numerous Europeans in Madrid and London (and almost in Germany), while America historically has done nothing but help Europe out. I lived in Europe in the late 1990s and they loved us. I'm sure much has changed since then, and I'm sure that there is much more anti-American sentiment now than before, but I really don't think that like Al Qaeda better than they like us.</p>

<p>raimus has already corrected you on your Hiroshima logic.</p>

44

<p>there is no 'correction' on my hiroshima loigic because ultimately the net result in the objective of establishing a hegemony is the same. i have repeated this to you several times by illustrating it but you just can't get it. assymetric warfare or not the net result revolves around the hegemonic goal and attempts to suspend the enemy's volatility with scare tactics, hiroshima bomb or al-qaeda style explosives. i already said that don trump went to europe numerous times on business trips and said on an interview post 9/11 era that the europeans hate us after he spoke with them when doing business. did you not catch that, apparently not.
we have cia'd many countries and al-qaeda is trying to cia us but just in a differt vibe. you obviously know nothing of conventional/psychological/assymetric warfare.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
Fundamentalist Christianity is against a lot of freedoms too.

[/quote]
And yet, virtually every "fundamentalist Christian" country enjoys greater freedoms than every "fundamentalist Islamic" country.</p>

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

[/quote]
Are you joking? They are against freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. That's against Western values. They are predisposed to not liking our societal values.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
And yet, virtually every "fundamentalist Christian" country enjoys greater freedoms than every "fundamentalist Islamic" country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you calling the U.S. a fundamentalist Christian country? If so, then you'd have to chalk up all their misdeeds to Christianity, something I have argued against.</p>

<p>And you don't get to count the rich European as Christian nations. They've long relegated Christianity to little more than their cultural history. Back when they were actually Christian nations, their freedoms were greatly limited, especially when compared to their counterpart Muslim empires.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you joking? They are against freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. That's against Western values. They are predisposed to not liking our societal values.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They are against freedom of speech and freedom of the press when they are politically harmful to them. Nothing more. There's no "Islamic gene" that causes every one of them to hate Western values. I know conservatives are aching for some kind of race/cultural war between the white Europeans vs. the dark-skinned others, but it doesn't exist here. It's pure politics and history.</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
Are you calling the U.S. a fundamentalist Christian country? If so, then you'd have to chalk up all their misdeeds to Christianity, something I have argued against.</p>

<p>And you don't get to count the rich European as Christian nations. They've long relegated Christianity to little more than their cultural history. Back when they were actually Christian nations, their freedoms were greatly limited, especially when compared to their counterpart Muslim empires.

[/quote]
So what countries on the planet do you consider Fundamentalist Christian nations? Are there any that you consider Fundamentalist Islamic nations?</p>

<p>
[quote]
They are against freedom of speech and freedom of the press when they are politically harmful to them. Nothing more.

[/quote]
Huh? Some countries have sharia law. They are against certain activities because of religious texts. Seriously, I don't even know how this point is even debatable.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There's no "Islamic gene" that causes every one of them to hate Western values.

[/quote]
Ummm, so why did Muslims, all over the world, get all up in arms when cartoon comics had Mohammed in print?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know conservatives are aching for some kind of race/cultural war between the white Europeans vs. the dark-skinned others, but it doesn't exist here. It's pure politics and history.

[/quote]
Funny, I don't notice this animosity towards Buddhist East Asians. Or Hindi Indians. Maybe it's because they don't blow up bombs in train stations.</p>

48

<p>The issue is definitely more of one dealing with politics, our continued presence in the middle east and our support of Israel, rather than it has to do with Islamic Fundamentalists hating western values. I think what proves this is the fact that you don't see terrorists coming out of other Muslim majority nations such as Indonesia. If terrorism and/or anti-american ideals was something religious in nature, rather than simply the politics of the region, we'd be seeing Indonesian Muslims blowing up buildings in LA or San Francisco. Furthermore, to reverse things a bit, you don't see terrorists hating on countries such as Japan, which hold similar values as the US concerning freedom of religion, speech, etc. If the terrorists hated the US and Europe for holding these ideals, then they would also logically have to hate Japan, but they don't. </p>

<p>This war is mostly due to conflicting political interests and long held grudges against imperialistic western powers by people in the region. Israel is seen as an extension of this imperialism (as millions of Palestinians and others had to be removed from their homes). As has been said before, these terrorists consider themselves to be freedom-fighters and once the US begins to realize this, we'd be able to work things out peacefully and possibly find a solution that makes everyone happy. Right now, terrorists are just like abused dogs lashing out against humans because of what humans have done to them in the past.</p>

49

<p>Yeah, it most likely is one of politics. The value differences are massive though.</p>

50

<p>Mr Payne,</p>

<p>I don't think that there are any Fundamentalist Christian nations that still exist in the world. Of all the industrialized countries, I suppose the U.S. is the one that still regularly demands evangelical values from its leaders, but there is no country in the world that has a Christian theological ruling body (Christian Democrats don't count because they don't use the Bible as their party charter or anything). There are some Fundamentalist Islamic nations for sure though, like Iran.</p>

<p>However, your argument was that Fundie Christian nations were more free than Fundie Muslim nations. That is not true, as there are no free Fundie Christian nations, mainly because there are no Fundie Christian nations in the first place. But if there were, they would just be as oppressive as Fundie Muslim nations. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Ummm, so why did Muslims, all over the world, get all up in arms when cartoon comics had Mohammed in print?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You honestly blame this on some kind of inherent Muslimness? Who are you, Lord Cromer from the 19th century? </p>

<p>Try to expand upon your limited empathy and see this from a Muslim/Middle Eastern point of view. Because of the actions of a few extremists, America, England, and its other cronies decide to attack Iraq for the crime of EWA: "Existing While being Arab". And this is not just an isolated incident. It is built upon over a century of lies, theft, and strong-arming by the West against the Middle East, perhaps most egregiously expressed when the British simply reneged on its promise to give the Middle East back to its people in return for military aid against the Turks (eventually resulting in the creation of Israel after World War II). </p>

<p>But no, people like you would rather just chalk up it all up to the incomprehensible weirdness of non-white people.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Funny, I don't notice this animosity towards Buddhist East Asians. Or Hindi Indians. Maybe it's because they don't blow up bombs in train stations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, Hindi is a language. Hinduism is the religion. Are you channeling John McCain right now?</p>

<p>Secondly, neither of those religions are evangelical, therefore they are not a threat to the reigning dominance of Christianity. In fact, it's very difficult to classify either beliefs as a "religion" in the Abrahamic tradition. That's why people like you are not threatened by Buddhists and Hindus who would much rather philosophize than proselytize.</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
You honestly blame this on some kind of inherent Muslimness?

[/quote]
Nah, I just think it's an inferior culture. Of which being Muslim is a part. The more secular, the more superior. American religiousity is a bit high for 1st world economies. Quality of life still manages to remain tolerable though. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Try to expand upon your limited empathy and see this from a Muslim/Middle Eastern point of view. Because of the actions of a few extremists, America, England, and its other cronies decide to attack Iraq for the crime of EWA: "Existing While being Arab". And this is not just an isolated incident. It is built upon over a century of lies, theft, and strong-arming by the West against the Middle East, perhaps most egregiously expressed when the British simply reneged on its promise to give the Middle East back to its people in return for military aid against the Turks (eventually resulting in the creation of Israel after World War II).

[/quote]
If bombing the West is what they think will correct their current situation they are far dumber than what I thought. Once oil runs out that entire area is going to be nothing but a lifeless husk.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But no, people like you would rather just chalk up it all up to the incomprehensible weirdness of non-white people.

[/quote]
I don't know, East Asians seemed to shape up after horrendous poverty and build 1st world economies (and all the wonderful stuff that comes with that). Last time I checked they were non-white.</p>

<p>
[quote]
First of all, Hindi is a language. Hinduism is the religion. Are you channeling John McCain right now?

[/quote]
Or perhaps a typo. Look at the keyboard, chief.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Secondly, neither of those religions are evangelical, therefore they are not a threat to the reigning dominance of Christianity. In fact, it's very difficult to classify either beliefs as a "religion" in the Abrahamic tradition. That's why people like you are not threatened by Buddhists and Hindus who would much rather philosophize than proselytize.

[/quote]
I'm atheist, I don't care about the reigning dominance of Christianity.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
Nah, I just think it's an inferior culture. Of which being Muslim is a part. The more secular, the more superior.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. Secularist is the best kind of society. Theologically Christian or theologically Muslim are both equally bad.</p>

<p>But most people that love to bash Islamic culture are often not approaching it from a disciplined secularist perspective, but from an overtly Christian one. Basically, they're proclaiming their voodoo is stronger than the other's.</p>