[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
if America pulls out of afghanistan, the war will move to American soil[/quote]
Bullshit. [/quote]
I don’t think SpyOptic believes Afghanistan will somehow develop an army that isn’t full of smack and hash-heads, load them onto boats, and raze Washington to the ground.
I think he’s referring to radical Islam’s willingness and ability to attack people and places in the US as ‘war’.
Although if that were the case, the war has never left America, so I could have SpyOptic’s opinion wrong.[/quote]
If that were the case, it would actually be happening.
I really thought people had grown out of the “terrorist behind every corner” mentality a few years ago. I guess I was wrong.[/quote]
I don’t know if you noticed, but they didn’t die off like the dinosaurs.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_times_square_car_bomb[/quote]
NEW YORK Ã?¢?? Calling himself a Muslim soldier, a defiant Pakistan-born U.S. citizen pleaded guilty Monday to carrying out the failed Times Square car bombing and left a sinister warning that unless the U.S. leaves Muslim lands alone, “we will be attacking U.S.”
Doesn’t the above indicate that some people are mobilized to attack in the US BECAUSE of operations in Afghanistan/Iraq?
Also, the radicals that ARE a threat to Americans are the ones who have the means to come to America… and something tells me they’re not going to stay home and get shot by an American soldier when they could, instead, fly here and actually carry out an act of terrorism.[/quote]
I think, post 9/11, most Muslim terrorists have been in the country of their terrorism for years, often 2nd or 3rd generation. I don’t think they get shipped to the West.
I think its faulty logic to assume that, if the stated motivation of a terrorist had been removed, that terrorist would no longer have been compelled towards his act of terrorism. Faizal announces that these attacks will continue until the US ‘leaves Muslim lands alone’. Does that mean no more foreign aid to Egypt? No more sharing of military tech and aid with Pakistan? No more security for Iraq? No more IMF monies for Malaysia and Indonesia ever? No more UN troops in Sub-Saharan Africa? No more aid and military presence to Uzbekistan and Krygistan? Faizal was Pakistani. The Pakistanis do not love us, but their underhanded support for international terrorism wore thin once they realized Al-Queda was only too happy to bite the hands that fed it. To suggest he did this for nationalist sympathies would be foolish.
Instead, I think most terrorists motivations currently boil down to American support for Israel. If Israel was destroyed, I think it would boil down to the restrictions The West would put on the practice of Islam (see current sentiments in Switzerland and Dutchland). If those were relaxed into nothingness, Europe would see parts of itself turned to model the Arab countries. That would be a step backwards.
My point is that I think Islam does this because it suffers from religious orthodoxy and radical fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism is rarely beneficient.
I don’t know how to cure Islam of fundamentalism, and, truth to tell, that’s not my job. If you look close you can see some headway being made. Eventually, I think they’ll resolve it. But in the meantime, no, it doesn’t mean their terrorist attacks are just reactions to America’s twin wars in the ME.[/quote]
I don’t think all, or all of their reason, was US military operations. But I do think it can influence some to be more likely to attack.
