The terrorism theory President Bush refuses to hear (1 Viewer)

[JayB]

onebytwo - if you dislike the methods used to create the country, then why do you live here? if it really is so hateful to you, and it is in conflict with your ideology, then what would you like done?

second of all, if horrible crimes were commited in the past, does that condone the same crimes being commited by another race/religion/creed/anything? if anything, it should be on our collective head to ensure that noone suffers what the aboriginal people here went through, it should be on our national conscience.
plus, it is those same "wacked up retards on crack" as you put it who are the ones threatening us now. in fact, it is pretty much exactly the same, except instead of targeting the mongols, this time they target ANYONE who isnt a Muslim, and specifically, any Muslim who doesn't agree with their point.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Yes thanks for that interesting lesson. It’s fascinating what the ancient world can teach you. Assasins, invented in Persia, exported to the world!
But I don't get it, where's the terrorist theory in that? Or was that just an example of violence that doesn't relate at all to what we are talking about? Yes? It is? Thanks.
All those people murdered by the Inquisition, ( Christian) would have felt much better knowning that the root of the word 'assassin' is Hashashihann.

The Inquisition killed less people in its entire duration than islamic terrorism does every year.

 

[onebytwo]

sorry, how many people has islamic extremism killed in the last 5 years?
compare this figure to the number of people killed by western imperialism and oppression.
just because i dislike the history of my country, yes im an australian, doesnt mean i hate its values and culture. the reason i wont live in afghanistan, if i were an afghan, is that i wouldnt want to suffer the oppresion of the US military. the reason i dont want to live in iraq, if i were an iraqi, is that i wouldnt want to live under even worse violence and illegality. the reaon i wouldnt want to live in lebanon, if i were leb, is that i wouldnt want to feel threatened by unjustified attacks. the reason i wouldnt want to live in palestine is that i wouldnt want to be humiliated, attacked, curfewed, allowed access to a certain amount of water each week, prevented access around a village, deprived of sovereinty.
osama bin laden is probably the best thing that happened to the bush admin., if you think that this shinky desert arab has the capacity as a real threat to the west, then your beyond help. the US could have shot down the planes on 911 but chose not to. bin laden has been and will remain an asset of the US. 5 years of searching has resulted in nothing, and since then the US maintains that his free existence poses a threat to freedom, an idea that will keep providing sustagen to the Bush propaganda.

 

[JayB]

sorry man, exactly how many people has western imperialism and oppresion killed in the last 5 years? i wasnt aware of any wall streeters strapping bomb vests and belts on, filling their pockets with nails, and streaming into a north korean marketplace, but then again, if you can show me the article, then ill accept what you say.

the reason i wouldnt live in iraq, afghanistan or iran for instance, at the moment would be secterian violence, for instance, the large number of shiite muslim terrorists causing violence in the region. before the military operations in the first two, i wouldnt have lived there because it was a totalitarian fascist regime. those things tend to suck. the regime that is. notice how if you look as history, those kind of regimes tend to commit genocides... cant just be a coincidence now can it?

 

[onebytwo]

sorry man, exactly how many people has western imperialism and oppresion killed in the last 5 years? i wasnt aware of any wall streeters strapping bomb vests and belts on, filling their pockets with nails, and streaming into a north korean marketplace, but then again, if you can show me the article, then ill accept what you say.

the reason i wouldnt live in iraq, afghanistan or iran for instance, at the moment would be secterian violence, for instance, the large number of shiite muslim terrorists causing violence in the region. before the military operations in the first two, i wouldnt have lived there because it was a totalitarian fascist regime. those things tend to suck. the regime that is. notice how if you look as history, those kind of regimes tend to commit genocides... cant just be a coincidence now can it?

your first paragraph, anyone would agree, is quite silly. i can present you with many articles about armed soldiers and planes (not wall streeters) using the latest high tech. deadly weapons (not just a bomb with nails in their pockets) in iraq and afghanistan (not north korea), but that would waste your and my time. - theres no sectarian violence in iran, why, because the US is yet to invade, but when they do, watch the anger "explode", dont you think it a coicidence that once the US have gotten involved sectarian violence erupted?
- george bush, before his presidency, has always maintained that he doesnt see the sense in getting involved in foreign politics
- have you ever properly read the "wolfowitz doctrine"?, if so what has it taught you on US perspective on foreign policy?
and by the way, US invasion of iraq has killed 150,000 civilians, if that "number" means anything to you. it probably doesn't. because your not human

 

[Generator]

theres no sectarian violence in iran, why, because the US is yet to invade, but when they do, watch the anger "explode", dont you think it a coicidence that once the US have gotten involved sectarian violence erupted?

I take it that you are ignoring the current state of Iran? You know, one of the world's most oppressive countries? It stands to reason that there would no sectarian violence within a country where conformity is enforced and dissent crushed.

No matter the faults of the US and its current administration, it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be.

 

[HotShot]

I take it that you are ignoring the current state of Iran? You know, one of the world's most oppressive countries? It stands to reason that there would no sectarian violence within a country where conformity is enforced and dissent crushed.

No matter the faults of the US and its current administration, it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be.

.. yes that why the us government supplied the israeli force with cluster bombs.... that now lay in thousands unexploded in lebanon... yes.

iran has control over its society through oppression. america hides its oppression.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Okay...what?

I think he was trying to portray himself as someone deeply effected by war. So he he finds it necessary to be harsh, because his personality has changed during war. However that quote is meant for people who have actually witnessed war and develop the mental conditions that follow. Not some kid who watches war via CNN and acts like it has hardened his emotions.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

elendil - the point is that this terrorism "theory" proposed by Pape doesnt actually address the issue, which has existed since the 11th century. the issue is not where our troops are, what our foreign policy is, or anything else mentioned in the articles. the issue is that these people intend to wreak as much havoc on the lives of the innocent for no other reason than they can, and it makes them more powerful. if the elements have existed since before our countries did, how can their existance be blamed on what our countries do? islamic terrorism completely pre-dates the bush administration, and indeed every american administration ever.

Okay, that true, but I think you’ll find violence in every religion predates the American nation. Violence, war, terrorism, guerilla fighters, all of these things have existed ever since the first cave people decided they didn't like the people in the other cave. Unfortunately, human beings have a tendency to love their prophets, but are generally incapable of following them, so eventually they take the easy way out, and use violence.

I still don't see that this is relevant today however!
We are dealing with modern terrorists, terrorists such as the Muslims in Britain who are educated in the Western World, given the opportunities of every Western citizen, and yet they see problems in the world that they are brainwashed into believeing can, and indeed must be solved with violence. We are not dealing with Hashish addicted tribespeople from 1100AD. We are dealing with dangerous people with real grievances, people who are so misguided about their own religion they belive that killing themselves is right, and that killing others is bloody fantastic.

 

[JayB]

i know, its not the clearest of connections, but its the best i've been able to do so far in a forum. ill try and flesh it out a bit, but it probably requires pages of stuff, so i wouldnt blame anyone for scrolling past it. this is the really abbreviated version.

the reason it is relevant today, is that the same methods are being used. the reason hashish was used back then was to convince the boys they were going to heaven, which was accomplished by getting them stoned, and then moving them to a garden with scantily clad maidens, and then theyd remove him, ad tell him thats what he was dying for. just like today, where these terrorists believe they are going to heaven when they die, so long as they take infidels with them. the thing is, and will be, that the majority of those trying to convince them dont really believe what they are preaching, otherwise, they would be leading the attacks, not ordering others to die for them. and, they werent tribespeople, they were islamic shiites, the same as the ones who are ruling iran at the moment.

 

[JayB]

is that clearer, or still kinda vague?

 

[onebytwo]

sorry, but im confused
-who are "these terrorists"?
-and are you trying to justify an iranian invasion because they use crack?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

i know, its not the clearest of connections, but its the best i've been able to do so far in a forum. ill try and flesh it out a bit, but it probably requires pages of stuff, so i wouldnt blame anyone for scrolling past it. this is the really abbreviated version.

the reason it is relevant today, is that the same methods are being used. the reason hashish was used back then was to convince the boys they were going to heaven, which was accomplished by getting them stoned, and then moving them to a garden with scantily clad maidens, and then theyd remove him, ad tell him thats what he was dying for. just like today, where these terrorists believe they are going to heaven when they die, so long as they take infidels with them. the thing is, and will be, that the majority of those trying to convince them dont really believe what they are preaching, otherwise, they would be leading the attacks, not ordering others to die for them. and, they werent tribespeople, they were islamic shiites, the same as the ones who are ruling iran at the moment.

Yeah okay I get where you are coming from. However, I would maintain that truly dangerous terrorists are coming from within, and that Iran is not really a danger to us.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Yeah okay I get where you are coming from. However, I would maintain that truly dangerous terrorists are coming from within, and that Iran is not really a danger to us.

The terrorists from within and the lunatics in Iran are the same thing, same source, same causes, same goals, same methods, same ideology, same appeasement from Europeans and the worthless UN.

The biggest difference is that one will soon have nukes.

 

[HotShot]

The terrorists from within and the lunatics in Iran are the same thing, same source, same causes, same goals, same methods, same ideology, same appeasement from Europeans and the worthless UN.

The biggest difference is that one will soon have nukes.

there is very little evidence to suggest that iran is developing nukes. It would be better and wiser not to force them/ or push them toward producing nukes by making false claims - like that being made by america.

nukes are not made overnight.

 

[ZabZu]

there is very little evidence to suggest that iran is developing nukes. It would be better and wiser not to force them/ or push them toward producing nukes by making false claims - like that being made by america.

nukes are not made overnight.

Theres too much building up against Iran, even the Europeans think Iran is making nukes.

Unfortunately, the US has ruined its own credibility and undermined any chance of action (economic or military) against Iran because of the Iraq fiasco.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

America has the most nukes in the world, when history shows they are the country we should least trust with them.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Theres too much building up against Iran, even the Europeans think Iran is making nukes.

Unfortunately, the US has ruined its own credibility and undermined any chance of action (economic or military) against Iran because of the Iraq fiasco.

I think it's more the appeasers and sympathisers in the anti-Israel, anti-American United Nations that are undermining any chance of action.

 

[HotShot]

Theres too much building up against Iran, even the Europeans think Iran is making nukes.

Unfortunately, the US has ruined its own credibility and undermined any chance of action (economic or military) against Iran because of the Iraq fiasco.

As if North Korea isnt a more serious threat.

 

[Comrade nathan]

As if North Korea isnt a more serious threat.

Why? What has the DPRK ever done to another nation?