Had the US not invaded Iraq, chances a kidnapped and killed Archbishop would be tiny.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Had the US not invaded Iraq, chances a kidnapped and killed Archbishop would be tiny. [/quote]
Saddam never killed anyone, huh? What about Al-Sadr’s father?
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Once again, only in your imagination. The regimes that I’m suggesting not be supported [like the Sauds] are the most fundamentalist, sharia obsessed groups in the Middle East. If anything you are the dhimmi here, since you seem to be against cutting support for these groups.
The rest of my suggestions involve not doing things that lead people to join organisations like AQ or commit acts like the bombing of the plane. What’s that? I’m suggesting social policies that reduce terrorism? Obviously I’m the one who doesn’t care about the innocents.
You keep avoiding the off ramps on this highway of bullshit you’re breezing down. It’s just too much for you to unequivocally denounce the previously noted acts of (islamic) terror.
[/quote]
Wow, you really have zero reading comprehension don’t you. Let me make this very, very clear for you; blowing up a plane full of civilians is bad. Just plain fucking wrong. As I have explained in every single one of posts, I am not excusing any of this. Keep repeating that though, since you have no actual points to make.
‘Their’ social policies? The people on the plane aren’t the ones who installed the social policies, so even if this was something hypothetically bad enough to kill over they’re killing people who don’t deserve it, therefore it’s still wrong. Good work continuing to attack shit I never said.
It’s interesting to note that you haven’t once addressed any of said social policies, because you know that supporting the Sauds and the rest of it is also wrong. You don’t just keep doing that shit out of spite to the terrorists, because that’s what they want. That’s how they recruit. Every time a bunch of civilians are massacred in Iraq for example [by anyone] more people sign up to whatever organisation they feel will allow them revenge.
Are you so stupid that the only response you have is that same response, revenge? That you can’t even understand about dealing with causation rather than just the result?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
will to power wrote:
The rest of my suggestions involve not doing things that lead people to join organisations like AQ or commit acts like the bombing of the plane. What’s that? I’m suggesting social policies that reduce terrorism? Obviously I’m the one who doesn’t care about the innocents.
So, if a bunch of Christians from Sudan began blowing up Mosques all around the world, hijacking Chinese planes and crashing them into buildings in Singapore, it would be ok because of how Christians are treated in Sudan and because China is giving the government money and weapons to commit genocide?[/quote]
What is with you people? Explaining a cause and effect relationship is not the same as condoning it. It’s not okay in China, and your situation wouldn’t be okay either. But if your hypothetical scenario occurred wouldn’t the smart thing to do be to reduce the oppression of Christians in Sudan so less people turn to terrorism?
Huh? Wasn’t the idea that Saddam was related to extremist Islam that supports terror.
Me confused.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Had the US not invaded Iraq, chances a kidnapped and killed Archbishop would be tiny.
Saddam never killed anyone, huh? What about Al-Sadr’s father?[/quote]
They did kill people, but that doesn’t invalidate my point in the least bit.
[quote]will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Islamist terrorists were planning and executing acts of terror against the US and other nations before the war in Iraq, and will continue to do so. Their rationale for doing so (along with Lixy’s) will continue to evolve since it’s all about keeping Jihad alive and well. All part of the pathology of islam.
Their rationale for doing so is the same as it has ever been; US troops in the middle east, meddling in middle eastern politics, propping up despotic governments, etc. When people don’t feel under attack by the US then they won’t be willing to die to lash back, since there won’t be a reason to lash back.
We just kicked out a despot.
I’m not even asking for you to put in that kind of effort. Just stop backing people like the Sauds.[/quote]
If only we could. Do you have any way we can stop them from buying our government? Prince Bandar has a direct line to the White House.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Islamist terrorists were planning and executing acts of terror against the US and other nations before the war in Iraq, and will continue to do so. Their rationale for doing so (along with Lixy’s) will continue to evolve since it’s all about keeping Jihad alive and well. All part of the pathology of islam.
Their rationale for doing so is the same as it has ever been; US troops in the middle east, meddling in middle eastern politics, propping up despotic governments, etc. When people don’t feel under attack by the US then they won’t be willing to die to lash back, since there won’t be a reason to lash back.
We just kicked out a despot.
I’m not even asking for you to put in that kind of effort. Just stop backing people like the Sauds.
If only we could. Do you have any way we can stop them from buying our government? Prince Bandar has a direct line to the White House. [/quote]
Sadly, no. Not exactly a small ask there. Although if you want to think of a way I would start by asking you what’s stopping you from stopping him from buying your government? Aside from being extremely rich and powerful.
[quote]will to power wrote:
Sadly, no. Not exactly a small ask there. Although if you want to think of a way I would start by asking you what’s stopping you from stopping him from buying your government? Aside from being extremely rich and powerful.[/quote]
9/11 should have been the wake-up call. Instead, they decided to turn a secular Arab country into another Sharia ruled land.
And then they turn around asking “why do they hate us?”…
I don’t get the Iraq war at all.
Saddam was a pan-arab secular fascist, and in his place, we’ve created three competing fundamental Islamic groups who all hate us and are sympathetic to Iran.
I don’t get who the hell thought that one out, but that is just about the stupidest thing, I’ve ever heard.
[quote]will to power wrote:
What is with you people? Explaining a cause and effect relationship is not the same as condoning it. It’s not okay in China, and your situation wouldn’t be okay either. But if your hypothetical scenario occurred wouldn’t the smart thing to do be to reduce the oppression of Christians in Sudan so less people turn to terrorism? [/quote]
Yes, but if we did so, would we be interfering with a Muslim government, and, in effect, make more people hate us?
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
We did not go there to install a government of our choosing, we went to take down Saddam. And religion was not one of the modivating factors of the invasion.
Huh? Wasn’t the idea that Saddam was related to extremist Islam that supports terror.
Me confused.[/quote]
No we feared he had weapons of mass destruction which could have been passed on to terrorists.
What I meant by “religion wasn’t a modivating factor” was we did not invade Iraq because they were Muslim, and we did not do so to convert these people to Christianity.
[quote]lixy wrote:
will to power wrote:
Sadly, no. Not exactly a small ask there. Although if you want to think of a way I would start by asking you what’s stopping you from stopping him from buying your government? Aside from being extremely rich and powerful.
9/11 should have been the wake-up call. Instead, they decided to turn a secular Arab country into another Sharia ruled land.
And then they turn around asking “why do they hate us?”…[/quote]
Wait, I thought you said Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9-11.
They hate us because we can not control how our taxes are spent.
-edit Iraq and 9-11 should never be used in the same sentence. This is a worse crime than a thousand spelling errors!
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
will to power wrote:
What is with you people? Explaining a cause and effect relationship is not the same as condoning it. It’s not okay in China, and your situation wouldn’t be okay either. But if your hypothetical scenario occurred wouldn’t the smart thing to do be to reduce the oppression of Christians in Sudan so less people turn to terrorism?
Yes, but if we did so, would we be interfering with a Muslim government, and, in effect, make more people hate us?[/quote]
Well, in your scenario it would be in the interest of the Chinese to stop supporting the Sudanese oppression of the Christian [by sending arms or whatever] and in the interest of the Sudanese to stop performing the oppression. But you are correct, it would not be in your interest to interfere too greatly if you are a third party. Though there are of course various measures specific to the situation if you so chose to aid the populace. These things can be delicate as hell and a huge headache, as I’m guessing you’ve witnessed over the last few years.
[quote]lixy wrote:
will to power wrote:
Sadly, no. Not exactly a small ask there. Although if you want to think of a way I would start by asking you what’s stopping you from stopping him from buying your government? Aside from being extremely rich and powerful.
9/11 should have been the wake-up call. Instead, they decided to turn a secular Arab country into another Sharia ruled land.
And then they turn around asking “why do they hate us?”…[/quote]
Very true. They should have listened to Bush Senior’s assessment the last time around.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
They hate us because we can not control how our taxes are spent.[/quote]
Sad, but also true. However many Arab [Muslim and otherwise] leaders do take pains to differentiate between the American people and the acts of their administration for exactly this reason.
Unfortunately, Bin Laden doesn’t make this distinction.
Either does Lixy, which is interesting to say the least.
[quote]will to power wrote:
But you are correct, it would not be in your interest to interfere too greatly if you are a third party. Though there are of course various measures specific to the situation if you so chose to aid the populace. These things can be delicate as hell and a huge headache, as I’m guessing you’ve witnessed over the last few years. [/quote]
I feel it would not be in our interest to interfere with the Muslim world anymore, because for one, they are backstabbing S.O.B’s. (we helped them in Afghanistan, set up their oil operation and pulled them out of the fire in Kosovo and we get hell for it.)
The other reason is because they are so homicidal in nature, any interference whether good or bad, causes them to kill both others or themselves.
So, yes, non-interference is a good idea. Let the bastards slaughter themselves like it’s 1550.
[quote]will to power wrote:
You called me on something that happened only in your imagination. Explaining why someone does something doesn’t mean you’re justifying it. Are you really too thick to understand that? It’s not a complicated concept.
[/quote]
The vast majority of people on this forum seem to be unable to grasp this point.
A country’s citizens are responsible for the actions of their government.
The government rules with the permission of the people.
At any point the government truly becomes intolerable to the people, they will slough it no matter how tyrannical.
In the case of the USA, we don’t care enough to do this with our own gov’t which shows our own character, and why we are held responsible for it. By those who find our gov’ts actions intolerable, particularly those who get bombs dropped on them.