Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today....

[its free real estate]

Listen mate, it doesn’t take the red army to invade to find a way to hold hitler accountable. I think old mate Adolf did enough to draw a big enough target on his back. I’ll give you a clue, it had to do with mass genocide. Oh but wait, you don’t believe in war crimes.....

This is seriously ahistorical. The Holocaust was not a motivating factor for the Allies in the war against the Nazis.

 

[FalcoX]

Which of these were invaded by the US before 9/11?

They have backed the oppression of the Palestinians since ww2, supplied saddam with aid and weapons to use on iranians and kurds and then when he wouldnt do their bidding anymore imposed sanctions that starved hundreds of thousands.

Cute how you seem to think 9/11 gave them the right to go on an invasion spree. It did not.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Netanyahu also doesn't believe in war crimes.

Perhaps the troll has co-opted Netanyahu's views?

Pol Pot was probably pretty lax on his international law as well.... think he was a lazy student

 

[Number37]

Pol Pot was probably pretty lax on his international law as well.... think he was a lazy student

Netanyahu wrote a paper on it.
Turd burger of the worst kind is Bibi.

 

[its free real estate]

They have backed the oppression of the Palestinians since ww2

So?

supplied saddam with aid and weapons to use on iranians and kurds and then when he wouldnt do their bidding anymore imposed sanctions that starved hundreds of thousands.

Saddam was a monster, but it was America's fault he was a monster. Got it.

Cute how you seem to think 9/11 gave them the right to go on an invasion spree. It did not.

Where was that claimed?

 

[Len Nicodemo]

This is seriously ahistorical. The Holocaust was not a motivating factor for the Allies in the war against the Nazis.

Nah they didn’t care.... I mean the allies didn’t care that Hitler wanted to rule world to create the perfect race.... the holocaust didn’t really enlighten anyone.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

So?


Saddam was a monster, but it was America's fault he was a monster. Got it.

Where was that claimed?

So....... it sort of has relevance.

Well America is responsible for loading up Saddam with weapons and also Bin Laden with them....

Where was it claimed? Maybe go and watch some footage of America’s war efforts post 9/11. It doesn’t have to be ‘claimed’ it’s ACTUALLY what happened....

 

[FalcoX]

So?


Saddam was a monster, but it was America's fault he was a monster. Got it.

Where was that claimed?

1. So it supports the notion that the muslim world has been hit with extreme violence for a long time.

2. Saddam was a monster who was fed US and western money and weapons. Would have been stopped far earlier and prevented from committing his most heinous crimes if not for that.

3. It was implied considering you bought 9/11 up for no reason.

 

[fleabitten]

When did the US invade Venezuela?

They've been behind a coup or two.

 

[its free real estate]

1. So it supports the notion that the muslim world has been hit with extreme violence for a long time.

But not by the US.

2. Saddam was a monster who was fed US and western money and weapons. Would have been stopped far earlier and prevented from committing his most heinous crimes if not for that.

Would he? Who supplied arms to Iran?

3. It was implied considering you bought 9/11 up for no reason.

No, you said that aggression towards the US was justified based on who they have invaded. But aggression towards the US began before they invaded any of the state you listed.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

But not by the US.


Would he? Who supplied arms to Iran?


No, you said that aggression towards the US was justified based on who they have invaded. But aggression towards the US began before they invaded any of the state you listed.

?????? Last point? I think they definitely started the invading...

 

[its free real estate]

?????? Last point? I think they definitely started the invading...

Who did they invade?

 

[FalcoX]

But not by the US.


Would he? Who supplied arms to Iran?


No, you said that aggression towards the US was justified based on who they have invaded. But aggression towards the US began before they invaded any of the state you listed.

1. not much difference between doing it yourself or enabling someone else to do it.

2. Read up. Saddam was losing the war before the US aid kicked in. Does not matter who was supplying Iran, they were not the aggressors.

3. I said in the message you had quoted 'Because they are the one who have been hit with extreme violence for far longer and consistent basis'. Did not specify the source as being only invasions. Nice clutching at straws though.

 

[smokingjacket]

Who did they invade?

You could argue the toss on Iran and Iraq.

 

[its free real estate]

You could argue the toss on Iran and Iraq.

Was siding with the Ba'athist regime over the Shiite Mullahs a motivation for Islamic antipathy to the West? The whole thing seems pretty tendentious.

The reality is that it is long standing. The Ottomans were beating down the doors of Europe for hundreds of years. Before them the various caliphates.

 

[smokingjacket]

Nah they didn’t care.... I mean the allies didn’t care that Hitler wanted to rule world to create the perfect race.... the holocaust didn’t really enlighten anyone.

I recognise this is meant to be written sarcastically but its free real estate is quite right. Much of the US and UK's justifications over WWII came post fact. The Jewish Holocaust was absolutely NOT a major factor in either country entering the war, and the absurdity of the British Empire entering a war against Hitler because he believed in race science should become immediately apparent if you read some views of the ruling British elite of time.

The Holocaust has BECOME an enlightening part of our civilisation but one of the most common faults of historical analysis, even among historians, is attributing modern values or thoughts to our forebears. We recoil at the thought of Nazism and race science now as a society but variants of white nationalism or ethno-state ideology were very popular pre-WWII.

 

[smokingjacket]

Was siding with the Ba'athist regime over the Shiite Mullahs a motivation for Islamic antipathy to the West? The whole thing seems pretty tendentious.

The reality is that it is long standing. The Ottomans were beating down the doors of Europe for hundreds of years. Before them the caliphates.

No argument from me, I was just being a pedant. Anglo-American political interference in the Middle East has been a source, or at least a justification, for hostility from 'some' sections of Iranian and Iraqi society. The original argument was over invasions not coups to be fair to you.

 

[its free real estate]

No argument from me, I was just being a pedant. Anglo-American political interference in the Middle East has been a source, or at least a justification, for hostility from 'some' sections of Iranian and Iraqi society. The original argument was over invasions not coups to be fair to you.

Yes, but if coups and Western puppet regimes are the motivation, then the whole "why isn't South America a source of anti-American terrorism" question comes into play.

The mistakes of invasion happened after Sep 11. If you read Bin Laden's letter, the stated reasons for the attacks by Al Qaeda were flimsy - they didn't want US troops stationed near holy sites in Saudi Arabia, among other things like Russia attacking Chechens (those long standing allies of the US, Russia!) or Indian aggression to Pakistan (America has always been cozy with the semi-Marxist Indian state over the Pakistanis!).

Bin Laden's letter was illogical and all over the place, like a stoned undergrad trying to piece together an imperialist conspiracy theory. They saw a symbol of power they thought as decadent and degenerate, and they attacked it.

 

[smokingjacket]

Yes, but if coups and Western puppet regimes are the motivation, then the whole "why isn't South America a source of anti-American terrorism" question comes into play.

The mistakes of invasion happened after Sep 11. If you read Bin Laden's letter, the stated reasons for the attacks by Al Qaeda were flimsy - they didn't want US troops stationed near holy sites in Saudi Arabia, among other things like Russia attacking Chechens (those long standing allies of the US, Russia!) or Indian aggression to Pakistan (America has always been cozy with the semi-Marxist Indian state over the Pakistanis!).

Bin Laden's letter was illogical and all over the place, like a stoned undergrad trying to piece together an imperialist conspiracy theory. They saw a symbol of power they thought as decadent and degenerate, and they attacked it.

Yeah and you left out Hitchen's big gotcha that he loved hammering in at leftist conferences: the immediate 'liberation' of Timor-Leste from "crusader forces" to a new Indonesian caliphate.

I thought people would understand the motivations of Al Qaeda much better after seeing what Daesh implemented in their brief reign. It's a religious and cultural reaction to Western liberalism.

 

[medusala]

Easy.
No oil in Vietnam.
US bombed the s**t out of them then left.
When the US bombs the s**t out of any country that has oil or any other natural resource, they stay and rape the country to within in inch of its life.

Central America
Africa
Middle East.

What assets has the US stolen from these countries? Which natural resources?

 

[smokingjacket]

What assets has the US stolen from these countries? Which natural resources?

Playing stupid isn't an admirable trait meds.

Central America - From the beginning to the end of the twentieth century, the US repeatedly intervened politically and militarily to perpetuate a plantation economy that provided cheap food and resources to the United States but impoverished the local population. Repeatedly murdered leaders of democratic movements seeking to end the plantation state.
Africa - Backed a series of incredibly corrupt dictatorships and autocratic regimes as part of the Cold War that remained in power by the grace of their dislike of communists and their support for US firms gaining access to mineral and oil extraction, on which royalties or taxation wouldn't be paid or would be knowingly deposited with a series of oligarchs to bolster an anti-communist elite. Again, knowingly impoverishing the local population and robbing them of the natural resources that belong to them as citizens of those countries.
Middle East - Instigated a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran to protect US oil access. Replaced the redistributive democratic government with a brutal and corrupt monarchy that would act as a determined anti-communist client state, while selling its oil to the US market at the price the US economy needed, sometimes even under the cost of production. All across the Middle East during the Cold War, nationalist and socialist movement attempts to gain access to the natural resource wealth that flowed to oligarchical or monarchical elites were brutally suppressed with the help of the US. The shame is that people look at places like Saudi today and think that the royal family are the best possible option, but this forgets the fact that the royal family murdered nearly all of the liberal-nationalist, socialist, and Marxist opposition movements in Saudi that opposed them. The Sunni theocrats are the only opposition left standing only because they need them for regime legitimacy.

There are reasons you could provide for why this was so, but it's a shameful thing to pretend it didn't happen.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Who did they invade?

Well historical information would show that a few years into the 20th century America invaded Syria because they felt a Muslim uprising ‘might occur’. I mean if we are going back that far and the form is based on speculation, then it’s a bit of a problem. In any case, what business is it if ours if it did occur? If it’s in their backyard then essentially they need to sort it out, I know we have allies in the Middle East and we act to protect and work with them, but unfortunately military invasions aren’t the answer.

 

[its free real estate]

Well historical information would show that a few years into the 20th century America invaded Syria because they felt a Muslim uprising ‘might occur’. I mean if we are going back that far and the form is based on speculation, then it’s a bit of a problem. In any case, what business is it if ours if it did occur? If it’s in their backyard then essentially they need to sort it out, I know we have allies in the Middle East and we act to protect and work with them, but unfortunately military invasions aren’t the answer.

... what?

 

[Len Nicodemo]

The primary issue is (on topic here) is that during the Soviet war in Afghanistan from the late seventies to late eighties, the US provided arms and financial resources (to the tune of 600 million) to the Mujahideen. This was essentially Al Qaeda. This was to assist in them defending against their Cold War rivals. Once Russia exited, there was a number of uprisings from political groups, this is where Saddam and Iraq saw opportunity to strike the wealthy oil fields.

Bin Laden offered the Saudi’s support, but they opted to accept support from the Americans, which essentially Bin Laden saw as a direct threat to his caliphate and essentially his religious beliefs that no foreign forces were needed was shut down by the Saudi’s.

America saw this as a nice avenue to step in to help the Saudi’s in the face of Saddam, hence the Gulf War. So really, at this point, if Bin Laden was able to be accepted by the Saudi’s to fight Saddam then they probably would’ve had very little gripe with the USA. I mean essentially it is their country, their land, their governments and rights to protect their sovereignty.

America riled Bin Laden because they saw those oil fields as threatened by Saddam, and they wanted to claim back those sources of revenue so they could stranglehold the market. Bin Laden went off the radar for a few years, but essentially came back in force because he became so Anti West that he had become hell bent on war waging with the US.

In 1989 America should’ve probably kept their noses out of it and let the Middle East work it out, instead of trying to broker political relations with Hussein re the oil, they went hell for leather and usurped Bin Laden. You see Bin Laden was a smart man, he’d have seen the value of political cooperation with the US IF he had his way off holding off Hussein and forging an alliance with the West against a greedy Iraq.

In typical American fashion, like Vietnam, the yanks got involved and rubbed them up the wrong way.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

... what?

Sorry, can’t help it if you can’t read...