[quote]fahd wrote:
…
Also, I hate people talking about what they don’t know. My grandparents are from China and they prefered Mao infinetly better than the previous dictator Jiang Jie Shi (who had a lot of support from the US). [/quote]
Mao had a habit of killing people that supported anyone but him.
[quote]fahd wrote:
Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
I’m not trying to deny that American foreign policy may have been faulty but the fact remains that the Al-Qaeda is not waging a war against Chavez or for Castro. Terrorism has resulted from the frustation of Al-Qaeda terrorists to rule the world on the basis of their half-brained ideology.
The Al-Qaeda wants to establish a Caliphate with Osama as the Caliph and they don’t want democratic rights in Afghanistan and Iraq to mess with their plans. Believing that the problem stems from denying legitimate rights to people in the Middle East is plain wrong, because the Al-Qaeda is at forefront of denying people their religious freedom (examples: (1)destruction of Buddha statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan (2) orders asking Kashmiri women to don the veil )
If grievances are supposed to be a justification for killing innocent people then even Milosevich cannot be held responsible for the murder of Bosnians.
Moreover, the US doesn’t have the worst foreign policy. There are many contenders for that claim such as China, Pakistan, Iran, and various Arab countries. If having a bad foreign policy is supposed to increase the danger of terrorist attacks then 9-11 should’ve taken place in these countries.
At present, American foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is helping the locals to get back those rights that were denied to them. The Al-Qaeda is against the actions of the US even when they are beneficial to the people. Doesn’t that make you wonder who the Al-Qaeda is actually fighting for?
I agree mostly with your post. The reasons for my posts were that I find it extremely hypocritical when most Americans associate “terrorism” with some bearded, eccentric mullahs.
More often than not, United States shares the blame when a child, woman, man, is displaced, tortured or disappeared at the hands of goverments and militia due to its support of extreme-right government and guerrilla in the third world (especially Latin America).[/quote]
I agree with you on this bit and I think that the US is being hypocritical and should stop right-wing dictators. But this is really a separate topic for discussion and talking about American-sponsored right-wingers on the Delhi blasts thread would evoke suspicion that you’re detracting attention from the Al-Qaeda led terrorism or maybe even justifying it (which perhaps is not what you’re trying to do.)
[quote]Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
some really good stuff.[/quote]
99% of terrorism is government sponsored, do your research.
jlesk, as amusing as your conspiracy theories can be, please don’t mess this thread up with them.
Start a new thread with the hottest theory and I will be happy to discuss.
So as a logical corollary we may say that Bush is right in wiping out governments that supported terror like the Baathists and the Taleban.
[quote]fahd wrote:
I never mentioned that he was an angel, just far better for the Chinese than the American puppet before him.
[/quote]
Obviously, since he was not supported by the US, he must be better, never mind those annoying details about dead people.
[quote]Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
So as a logical corollary we may say that Bush is right in wiping out governments that supported terror like the Baathists and the Taleban.[/quote]
This is your argument:
A: Any government that supported terror is a threat to the US
B: They should be removed by the US
C: Therefore the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified
The Baathist supported supported suicide bombers in Israel, did the regime pose an imminent threat to the US?
Does A automatically lead to B? What gives US the right to remove governments that it perceives as a threat? Is it her God-given right?
The war was not permmited by the UN nor did it have the support of major world powers, does it make it legitimate morally and legally?
Just a few interesting questions,
Fahd
[quote]Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
fahd wrote:
I never mentioned that he was an angel, just far better for the Chinese than the American puppet before him.
Obviously, since he was not supported by the US, he must be better, never mind those annoying details about dead people.[/quote]
American puppet or Chinese dictatorship? I vote Chinese dictatorship.
[quote]fahd wrote:
Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
So as a logical corollary we may say that Bush is right in wiping out governments that supported terror like the Baathists and the Taleban.
This is your argument:
A: Any government that supported terror is a threat to the US
B: They should be removed by the US
C: Therefore the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified
The Baathist supported supported suicide bombers in Israel, did the regime pose an imminent threat to the US?
Does A automatically lead to B? What gives US the right to remove governments that it perceives as a threat? Is it her God-given right?
…[/quote]
I know this was not directed at me, but are you serious?
What gives the US the right to fight back against those that murder its citizens (and other innocents) and have pledged to destroy it?
Let me reiterate, the USA is responsible for who it lets in. This is why you are not reasonably blaming Mexico for who crosses your border. It is hardly fair to offload your security needs to other countries. I don’t pay my taxes to my government so that it can spend them looking out for US interests.
Idiot.
Perhaps if you, the US, made less enemies, you wouldn’t have to try to get your neighbors to spend their time and money to watch your back. Personally, I think you are quoting very misguided information with respect to Canadian borders, but the point is moot regardless.
If you want secure borders, perhaps you should lobby YOUR government to put resources into that area. That applies to both Mexico and Canada. Anyway, nice republican tactic to try to shift blame away from the current administration and it’s complete unwillingness to secure your own borders.
For the insanely dense, your country is responsible for it’s own security.
[quote]fahd wrote:
Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
fahd wrote:
I never mentioned that he was an angel, just far better for the Chinese than the American puppet before him.
Obviously, since he was not supported by the US, he must be better, never mind those annoying details about dead people.
American puppet or Chinese dictatorship? I vote Chinese dictatorship.
[/quote]
Chinese dictator = Soviet puppet
So it was essentially a choice between the US and the Soviets. (Comrade, your statement displays regrettable evil capitalist leanings. You should know that Chairman Mao believed in bullets not in the ballot.)
[quote]vroom wrote:
Canada has not been making the same effort to keep the radicals out. If Canada didn’t share the biggest unpatrolled border in the world with the US this might not be a concern, but since it is pretty easy to get into the US from Canada I wish Canada would do more.
Let me reiterate, the USA is responsible for who it lets in. This is why you are not reasonably blaming Mexico for who crosses your border. It is hardly fair to offload your security needs to other countries. I don’t pay my taxes to my government so that it can spend them looking out for US interests.
Idiot.
Perhaps if you, the US, made less enemies, you wouldn’t have to try to get your neighbors to spend their time and money to watch your back. Personally, I think you are quoting very misguided information with respect to Canadian borders, but the point is moot regardless.
If you want secure borders, perhaps you should lobby YOUR government to put resources into that area. That applies to both Mexico and Canada. Anyway, nice republican tactic to try to shift blame away from the current administration and it’s complete unwillingness to secure your own borders.
For the insanely dense, your country is responsible for it’s own security.[/quote]
vroom, is spite of the fact that you live in Canada I am still against building a wall.
Trying to keep the radicals out of Canada is of benefit to both Canada and the US.
Besides being a good neighbor, it also may save your country a lot of trouble someday.
Perhaps Canada should take this shit a little more seriously. Look at the current problems in France.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What gives the US the right to fight back against those that murder its citizens (and other innocents) and have pledged to destroy it?
[/quote]
What have Iraq done between the 2 Gulf wars that posed an IMMINENT threat to the US?
If I plege to destroy the US now (without any threatening behavior/action), does it give Uncle Sam the legal and moral right to track me down and kill me?
Fahd
[quote]fahd wrote:
Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
So as a logical corollary we may say that Bush is right in wiping out governments that supported terror like the Baathists and the Taleban.
This is your argument:
A: Any government that supported terror is a threat to the US
B: They should be removed by the US
C: Therefore the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified
The Baathist supported supported suicide bombers in Israel, did the regime pose an imminent threat to the US?
Does A automatically lead to B? What gives US the right to remove governments that it perceives as a threat? Is it her God-given right?
The war was not permmited by the UN nor did it have the support of major world powers, does it make it legitimate morally and legally?
Just a few interesting questions,
Fahd[/quote]
Since my quote was a response to jlesk I suggest you read that quote first to understand what I’m referring. Then look up the word “sarcasm”.
With regard to god-given rights, does Iran have a god-given right to threaten Israel, does China have a god-given right to torture the Tibetans? With regard to UN support, did Mao and Stalin enjoy it? Did Saddam take the UN’s permission to invade Kuwait?
Why do you expect only the US to adhere to rules, while considering it okay for other to violate these rules many times over?
[quote]Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
Chinese dictator = Soviet puppet
[/quote]
Dude, do some research about sino-soviet split in the 1960s. They pulled out all support/influence in China after major disagreements.
Don’t try to play that wacko/commie card, I was merely observing the fact that US-sponsored-right-wing-dictatorships are worse than an ultra-left-wing-Chinese-dictatorsip. Won’t you prefer to have someone your nationality to determine the fate of your country?
[quote]Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
Why do you expect only the US to adhere to rules, while considering it okay for other to violate these rules many times over?[/quote]
If something is wrong, it is wrong, doesn’t matter who did it. China should pull out of Tibet and Eastern Turkestan IMHO.
However, if US spanks countries for not obeying these rules and reinvents itself as “world cop” and “moral police”, they better practice what they preach.
I’d rather there’s less hypocracy.
[quote]Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
Why do you expect only the US to adhere to rules, while considering it okay for other to violate these rules many times over?[/quote]
And thanks for being honest enough to admit that US hasn’t been playing by the rules.
[quote]Trying to keep the radicals out of Canada is of benefit to both Canada and the US.
Besides being a good neighbor, it also may save your country a lot of trouble someday.
Perhaps Canada should take this shit a little more seriously. Look at the current problems in France. [/quote]
That’s the other point.
Canada does take this seriously. The fact that some finger pointing took place early on after 9/11 does not mean that we don’t poke and prod visitors to our country.
Dolt.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You don’t stop terror - terror is a tactic, as someone mentioned.
You stop your enemies.[/quote]
Indeed[quote]
How do you stop them? Same way as anyone has stopped anyone historically - isolate them and take them out. The rules haven’t changed - we just need to rediscover them. [/quote]
Ok, I agree with this to a point. Yes you do isolate and destroy. But, how do you isolate terrorism? You cant. It will show up in any country any place at any time. It cant really be isolated. You really cant even hope to contain it. All you can do is prepare for it. And that doesnt seem to be enough. But, prepareing for it opens up a whole other can of worms. If you isolate one country, then it will appear in another country. [quote]
The current crop of baddies - like all of them before - want power and control. Act weak, you invite their aggression. Pacifism is never the solution.[/quote]
I dont think that America has ever acted weak. But, yet we still are attacked. Now dont get me wrong if you act weak then yes I do agree that you invite it on yourself. But, it seems that attacking a stong super power like the USA brings more attention and fear and more publicity for the terrorist than attacking a weak country. And that is just what they want. So it seems that being strong has caused the same thing to happen. So it appears that no country is safe from terroism be it strong or weak.
Goku