Bhutto and Al Qaeda

[YomMamasHouse]

The reasons found in 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive, your foreign policy and your society are both factors. Of course, your foreign policy was what ignited the problem, if the US had not pissed the terrorists off by overstepping their authority there would not be the problem there is today. Your lifestyle makes them hate and distrust you, but your policies make them want to wage war on you.

[Everything]

Guys.. I wanna know...
What are we accomplishing by knowing what she did wrong to get her killed/murdered? Is it because you just want to discuss about it? If so, alright.
I just find threads about the news a little absurd.
(Ignore meh)

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

The reasons found in 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive, your foreign policy and your society are both factors. Of course, your foreign policy was what ignited the problem, if the US had not pissed the terrorists off by overstepping their authority there would not be the problem there is today. Your lifestyle makes them hate and distrust you, but your policies make them want to wage war on you.

Your comment would seem to ignore that there are many regions of the world where Al Qaeda and/or Islamic Extremists do this very thing where the US cannot be a factor in the decision making in all but the most deluded of minds. Fact of the matter is that a key component of Al Qaeda focus is the overthrow of non-Islamic governments. Simply focusing on US activities is to ignore the broader picture of why these people do what they do.

If for nothing else Bhutto was killed as she is someone who would support a form of government abhorrent to Al Qaeda in Pakistan. An interesting prospect given the history of that region.

Originally Posted by Kenny

Guys.. I wanna know...
What are we accomplishing by knowing what she did wrong to get her killed/murdered? Is it because you just want to discuss about it? If so, alright.
I just find threads about the news a little absurd.
(Ignore meh)

I suspect the objective is mostly just petty bickering and arguing. Debate and discussion seem to be taboo here.

[Everything]

Oh, I see. Oh well.

[Bubbles]

Why the fuck is this happening again? The users of this forum couldn't come to an agreement on a political topic even if the users' lives depended on it, but just turns into a "NOE U R!!" debate. Stop trying. ARRRRR

[Credge]

Bush did it and God said so himself.

God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Your comment would seem to ignore that there are many regions of the world where Al Qaeda and/or Islamic Extremists do this very thing where the US cannot be a factor in the decision making in all but the most deluded of minds. Fact of the matter is that a key component of Al Qaeda focus is the overthrow of non-Islamic governments. Simply focusing on US activities is to ignore the broader picture of why these people do what they do.

Really, Innoc? Because with just a little bit of research, it appears the overwhelming majority of al-Qaeda's attacks have been aggressions against the United States (or, post 2002, the so-called Coalition of the Willing), whether it be on foreign soil or not.

Like I said, you and others are ignoring your own government, CIA, commissions, experts, and declarations of the perpetrators.

No one has taken up my challenge to find a document, peer-reiviewed literature, or expression of the perpetrators to backup your misguided claim that they simply attacked us because they hate how we live--and that they don't care if we're occupying their religious lands or not.

It's a nice excuse for maximally socialist people like Scuzzy to say that there was no way to avoid this and there's no way we're not going to be attacked again if we're not using the tax-payers' money to help spread social equality and welfare across the globe. To me, that just sounds like socialism on a global scale. It's a nice excuse to say we had nothing to do with it, so big-government people like Scuzzy can come along and say we need to expand our government, create more bureaucracy, have government regulate more, spend more than ever, borrow more than ever, and take away the civil liberties of the citizens for "protection."

It's a nice excuse, but it's not fooling me.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Really, Innoc? Because with just a little bit of research, it appears the overwhelming majority of al-Qaeda's attacks have been aggressions against the United States (or, post 2002, the so-called Coalition of the Willing), whether it be on foreign soil or not.

Like I said, you and others are ignoring your own government, CIA, commissions, experts, and declarations of the perpetrators.

No one has taken up my challenge to find a document, peer-reiviewed literature, or expression of the perpetrators to backup your misguided claim that they simply attacked us because they hate how we live--and that they don't care if we're occupying their religious lands or not.

It's a nice excuse for maximally socialist people like Scuzzy to say that there was no way to avoid this and there's no way we're not going to be attacked again if we're not using the tax-payers' money to help spread social equality and welfare across the globe. To me, that just sounds like socialism on a global scale. It's a nice excuse to say we had nothing to do with it, so big-government people like Scuzzy can come along and say we need to expand our government, create more bureaucracy, have government regulate more, spend more than ever, borrow more than ever, and take away the civil liberties of the citizens for "protection."

It's a nice excuse, but it's not fooling me.

Let me give you a much simpler task. Find a quote from this thread where I've made that claim or statement that I placed in bold above. Let me save you some trouble. It doesn't exist. Your straw man fell over...you might want to find more hay to prop it up. Fact is radical Islam is far more active than just against US Forces. You may want to do some reading on that as there's plenty of material on it.

[uBeR]

Of course you didn't state it explicitly, and it was not specifically meant for you. But, you're posts suggest you think 1) al-Qaeda tries to overthrow all non-Islamic governments (whereas this doesn't seem to be the case, per my last post: i.e, overwhelming attacks are against U.S. and Western Coalition); and 2) That because al-Qaeda attack other people, that the United States in not a major contributing factor.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

First answer my questions ekiM, then I'll answer yours. I'm not going to play the "answer questions with questions" game with you in this thread. If you don't want to, fine, go trolling somewhere else. Afterwards I have answers to both of the above, and look forward to actually having a debate of substance with you.

I entered this thread by quoting three statements of yours and asking for clarification. You had not asked me any questions. The questions you asked uBeR are not germane to what I am asking you. You have answered my questions with irrelevant questions while simultaneously accusing me of doing exactly that.

The questions you've asked uBeR are questioning a position that nobody holds. Certainly, I don't hold the positions the question is trying to undermine. So why, exactly, should I answer the questions? I'll go through them anyway.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

1) It's been said that Al Qaeda only attacks the US Civilian population because of our foreign policy. We have been blamed by some for making them so angry for medaling in the affairs of other countries and this was their only recourse. (All their other attempts at sit-ins, writing campaigns, elections, and petition drives having failed). Given that situation, if Al Qaeda truly is only resorting to violence as a means of political change, what made Bhutto so impossible to change via elections, negotiation, etc? She didn't have a military, she wasn't "invading" other countries, she wasn't messing in other countries foreign affairs.

I don't believe that the only thing Al Qaeda have against the US is their foreign policy. Therefore this question is asking me to defend a position I do not hold.

Bhutto was a progressive liberal with strong ties to the west. If Al Qaeda assassinated her, that is why. They didn't try to affect her policies by negotiation because they are amoral terrorists.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

2) On the other hand, it has been the contention of some people that Al Qaeda simply does not care for freedom, womans rights, and democracy.

Again I ask whether you mean that these are the only things motivating Al Qaeda? What, exactly, are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

a) Wouldn't you agree that Al Qaeda's record of violence, bring jihad, and own words support that argument?

I agree that Al Qaeda's words and actions demonstrate that they do not "care for freedom, womans rights, and democracy".

I also think that their words and actions demonstrate that their primary motivation for acting against US interests is US interventionism in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

b) If they are against these things, how would you negotiate a peaceful accord with them?

I wouldn't. I never said that one could or should.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

c) How could Bhutto have negotiated a peaceful accord with them and not gotten herself killed, while still getting the freedom and democracy she has been reported to want?

She couldn't. I never said that she could.

These last two questions make no sense at all. Al Qaeda is not a centralized organisation with a leadership you could negotiate with. It's a loose confederation of terrorist cells with similar motivations and methods. Even if it did have a central leadership they would not be interested in negotiation.

You are arguing against people who are saying that we should negotiate with Al Qaeda. One problem - NOBODY is saying that.

I've answered your questions, although they were in equal parts nonsensical and attacking strawmen and they were all irrelevant to what I asked you, first. Now, I'm sure you'll have tons to write in response. Maybe you could do me a small kindness at the end and respond with the word "Yes" or "No" to this one little question :

Do you agree that Al Qaeda's words and actions demonstrate that US interventionism motivates, in part, Al Qaeda's attacks against US interests?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Of course you didn't state it explicitly, and it was not specifically meant for you. But, you're posts suggest you think 1) al-Qaeda tries to overthrow all non-Islamic governments (whereas this doesn't seem to be the case, per my last post: i.e, overwhelming attacks are against U.S. and Western Coalition); and 2) That because al-Qaeda attack other people, that the United States in not a major contributing factor.

Umm Uber, that mission of overthrowing non-Islamic Gov't is Al Qaeda's primary goal. Even spending the smallest amount of time reading about Al Qaeda will reveal that to be pretty clear. The rest of your comment is your assumption and is untrue. If you're curious about my unstated positions then I suggest that you ask me as your ability to discern what someone's undisclosed position is pretty weak.

[Nuk3m]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Really, Innoc? Because with just a little bit of research, it appears the overwhelming majority of al-Qaeda's attacks have been aggressions against the United States (or, post 2002, the so-called Coalition of the Willing), whether it be on foreign soil or not.

Like I said, you and others are ignoring your own government, CIA, commissions, experts, and declarations of the perpetrators.

No one has taken up my challenge to find a document, peer-reiviewed literature, or expression of the perpetrators to backup your misguided claim that they simply attacked us because they hate how we live--and that they don't care if we're occupying their religious lands or not.

It's a nice excuse for maximally socialist people like Scuzzy to say that there was no way to avoid this and there's no way we're not going to be attacked again if we're not using the tax-payers' money to help spread social equality and welfare across the globe. To me, that just sounds like socialism on a global scale. It's a nice excuse to say we had nothing to do with it, so big-government people like Scuzzy can come along and say we need to expand our government, create more bureaucracy, have government regulate more, spend more than ever, borrow more than ever, and take away the civil liberties of the citizens for "protection."

It's a nice excuse, but it's not fooling me.

how is socialism completely bad? our government is a democratic republic. Socialized jobs are all over the place. Garbage men, fire fighters,etc.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

It's a nice excuse for maximally socialist people like Scuzzy to say that there was no way to avoid this and there's no way we're not going to be attacked again if we're not using the tax-payers' money to help spread social equality and welfare across the globe. To me, that just sounds like socialism on a global scale. It's a nice excuse to say we had nothing to do with it, so big-government people like Scuzzy can come along and say we need to expand our government, create more bureaucracy, have government regulate more, spend more than ever, borrow more than ever, and take away the civil liberties of the citizens for "protection."

I think you meant to say:

It's a nice excuse for maximally socialist people like uBeR to say that there was no way to avoid this and there's no way we're not going to be attacked again if we're not using the tax-payers' money to help spread social equality and welfare across the globe. To me, that just sounds like socialism on a global scale. It's a nice excuse to say we had nothing to do with it, so big-government people like uBeR can come along and say we need to expand our government, create more bureaucracy, have government regulate more, spend more than ever, borrow more than ever, and take away the civil liberties of the citizens for "protection."

Cause what you said above makes no sense.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Maybe you could do me a small kindness at the end and respond with the word "Yes" or "No" to this one little question :

Since you want me to limit my answers to Yes and No, I will, but you're just going to ask why.

Originally Posted by ekiM

Do you agree that Al Qaeda's words and actions demonstrate that US interventionism motivates, in part, Al Qaeda's attacks against US interests?

No.

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

I didn't ask you to limit your responses. I asked you to answer at least that one question in the affirmative or in the negative. It's usually so hard to get a straight answer out of you, you know?

I guess you have no comments on my answers to your questions.

Few more questions :

Do you genuinely believe that anyone on this board has stated that we should negotiate with Al Qaeda? Can you quote someone saying that?

You've said that US interventionism in the Middle East plays NO part in the motivations of Al Qaeda. Why? You really think extreme Islam doesn't care about protecting the Holy Land against outsiders?

Earlier in the thread you said that the words of Al Qaeda show that they don't care for freedom, democracy &c. Yet Al Qaeda state, pretty clearly, that they don't care for US interventionism. Why are you willing to believe them about the former but not the latter?

[YomMamasHouse]

It is easier to feel self righteous when Al Quaeda hates them for their lifestyle instead of the fact that they meddle in other people's affairs.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I think you meant to say:

It's a nice excuse for maximally socialist people like uBeR to say that there was no way to avoid this and there's no way we're not going to be attacked again if we're not using the tax-payers' money to help spread social equality and welfare across the globe. To me, that just sounds like socialism on a global scale. It's a nice excuse to say we had nothing to do with it, so big-government people like uBeR can come along and say we need to expand our government, create more bureaucracy, have government regulate more, spend more than ever, borrow more than ever, and take away the civil liberties of the citizens for "protection."

Cause what you said above makes no sense.

Really? You don't think using tax-payers' money to spread social reform and welfare for others is not a form of socialism? Do you honestly believe you're taking a conservative position by saying we need to be involved in the internal affairs of other nations?

[DarkeN_HellspawN]

to want to wipe Al Queda off of the face of the earth. Is it that wrong to want the destruction of Islamic fanatics since they want to see us dead? I do not see the problem in killing anyone that whose main mission in life is to try to inflict pain, fear or death upon a group of people. We are the good guys and not them. Only the strong survives in this dog eat dog world and if that means wiping all of the jihadists and future generations of jihadists off of the face of the earth then who really cares. Is anyone here going to be hurt if they are all killed over the years. I will not lose any sleep over it and have not since. They are barbaric and we are not.........does that mean that we are right.......NO!!!!......but we have F-22 Raptors and smart bombs so does it matter if we are right or not??? Not to me........If I have to choose sides I think I will stick with the one I am on.

The USA considerd itself the police of the world when we want to be or our government dictates it so on occasions. If we feel we are doing a good job for the earth by getting rid of these people are we really that bad in your eyes. You may not want the help but we are still there for you.

dh

dh

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

I didn't ask you to limit your responses. I asked you to answer at least that one question in the affirmative or in the negative. It's usually so hard to get a straight answer out of you, you know?

I guess you have no comments on my answers to your questions.

Few more questions :

Do you genuinely believe that anyone on this board has stated that we should negotiate with Al Qaeda? Can you quote someone saying that?

You've said that US interventionism in the Middle East plays NO part in the motivations of Al Qaeda. Why? You really think extreme Islam doesn't care about protecting the Holy Land against outsiders?

Earlier in the thread you said that the words of Al Qaeda show that they don't care for freedom, democracy &c. Yet Al Qaeda state, pretty clearly, that they don't care for US interventionism. Why are you willing to believe them about the former but not the latter?

You asked for a Yes or No question, but your question, in my opinion, was improperly worded. Between the two the only answer I could give you, was No. I see a clear line between an excuse and motivation. If you want to say that the US is the (or just a) motivating factor in Al Qaeda's slaughtering of innocent civilians that assigns a level of blame and guilt on the United States for those deaths. If the US is in some way guilty of contributing to those deaths, then in turn Al Qaeda must be justified in killing those people. I do subscribe to that. I believe Al Qaeda will use whatever propaganda and excuse they can to force their will upon the rest of the world. Has the foreign policy of the US been a convenient excuse for Al Qaeda to say it's a catalyst for their holy war? Absolutely. An excuse, nothing more. Just as surely as stoning a girl to death for being in the same room as a man not of her family isn't because she's done something wrong, but to exert their power and hold over her and remind those like her they are in power. Just like rape is not about sex, it's about power.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Really? You don't think using tax-payers' money to spread social reform and welfare for others is not a form of socialism? Do you honestly believe you're taking a conservative position by saying we need to be involved in the internal affairs of other nations?

When have I said we need to get involved in the internal affairs of other nations as a socialist program?

Scuzzy