Ah but then it's best to say they were terrorists and leave at that. Validating excuses means you justify it somewhat.Everyone everywhere has a reason they do something.LJS9502_basicI think it's at least important to try and understand the reasons something happened (even if you don't agree with it). As Sun Tzu would say, in fighting any war, you must try and at least understand your enemies and their motives, no matter how crazy they are. For all their fundamentalism and irrationality, the 9/11 bombers were highly methodological men who managed to achieve a (unfortunately) very successful attack with very limited resources and manpower. Discounting them as lunatics doesn't really serve to protect innocent people in the future, and it doesn't help to try and find how the USA and the West might fight their influence in the Middle East in the future.
Americans criticise European reaction to Bin Laden
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Whoop-di-do, the US had military bases on Saudi Arabia's soil with the government's permission, which they viewed as "Holy ground". The only thing this proves is that Al-Qaeda ridiculous crusade that contributed to the death of their all-great leader. He got what he deserved in the end. He'll be rotting in hell just about now, and the rest of the jihadists will be joining him soon.CannedWormsIf I believed in Hell, I'd agree with that. All I'm trying to say is, Al Qaeda had their misguided reasons for doing what they did, and I think it's important to fighting that sort of extremism in the future that we at least try to understand that.
Of course they have a say in helping create terrorists. By going into other countries in the ME and acting like a bully, manipulating governments, overthrowing others and dropping bombs on their territories it's bound to make many people in the region hate you and want to destroy you. I imagine the same will happen with many "patriotic americans" if they had a foreign culture constantly interfeering with their lives.Wow, talk about short memory syndrome. Last I knew, America was attacked unprovoked by a worldwide terror organisation. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest Muslim terrorists will give their up Jihad whether or not America is on their soil. In fact they won't, and you know it. Also, I'd happily let in a foreign occupier to rid of terrorists if I lived in one of the most unstable, poor and generally ****est countries in the world.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="CannedWorms"]America has no say in "helping create terrorists". These low life's are the result of their culture and religion. There were terrorists before Iraq/Afghanistan and they'll be a plethora more in the future. There's no "helping" those uneducated animals. If they want to get offended over a mass murderer's death (understatement) being celebrated then what help is there for them (the same applies to Europeans, btw)? The fact that you are going out of your way to make excuses for them is pretty sad indeed.CannedWorms
So no, America doesn't help create terrorists, their "brothers" who brainwash them do that. In addition, we could apply all your theories to the terrorist invasion of non-Muslim countries. "By going into countries, hating their culture, acting like their martyrs, manipulating moderate Muslims, trying to overthrow the native people and committing atrocities on their territory's it's bound to make many in the region hate you and want to destroy you."
In conclusion, we don't want to destroy Muslims way of life, but we'll happily destroy those who commit attacks in the name of Jihad.
Wow if I have short memory syndrome you have no memory syndrome or something worse like imaginary memory syndrome :P The USA trained and funded the mujahideen (taliban) while they took power in Afghanistan and fought the soviets, the back then president Ronald Reagan even called the Taliban heroes and compared them to the american forefathers. Meanwhile bin Laden became very friendly with the Taliban and the US knew that, he also had a lot of anti-western friends yet the US kept pushing Saudi Arabia and other places like Pakistan to do their will, while in the meantime ignoring that a little group called Al Qaeda was being formed with the help of Bin Laden funded by money from many of his companies (many of which had dealings in the US while the US kept being friends with and manipulating bin Laden's family). The Taliban once even proposed giving bin Laden to the US and they refused. By the way the US also helped Saddam's Hussein Baath party in the region and helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadeq in Iran. So if you want to talk about short memory problems I suggest you look at your own since apparently your memory doesn't go back farther than 9/11 which was, in a big way, a consequence of all the shaddy dealings the US has been doing in the region for a long time in exchange for oil and backstabbing allies.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah but then it's best to say they were terrorists and leave at that. Validating excuses means you justify it somewhat.Everyone everywhere has a reason they do something.Danm_999I think it's at least important to try and understand the reasons something happened (even if you don't agree with it). As Sun Tzu would say, in fighting any war, you must try and at least understand your enemies and their motives, no matter how crazy they are. For all their fundamentalism and irrationality, the 9/11 bombers were highly methodological men who managed to achieve a (unfortunately) very successful attack with very limited resources and manpower. Discounting them as lunatics doesn't really serve to protect innocent people in the future, and it doesn't help to try and find how the USA and the West might fight their influence in the Middle East in the future.If reasons are irrational....then there is nothing one can do to prevent those who hold irrational views from attempting to act.
If reasons are irrational....then there is nothing one can do to prevent those who hold irrational views from attempting to act.LJS9502_basicYou're probably right. It's just a very dangerous thing when men are willing to give their lives to a cause, and I think it bears examination that it might be stopped in the future.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]If reasons are irrational....then there is nothing one can do to prevent those who hold irrational views from attempting to act.Danm_999You're probably right. It's just a very dangerous thing when men are willing to give their lives to a cause, and I think it bears examination that it might be stopped in the future.You can't wipe the cause away though if they believe in it. And much of the followers honestly don't know much about their supposed "enemy" other than what they are fed. Unless those individuals are willing to learn for their own...there is nothing anyone can do. Spin can be put on even the most altruistic of actions if one has a mind to do so.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]If reasons are irrational....then there is nothing one can do to prevent those who hold irrational views from attempting to act.LJS9502_basicYou're probably right. It's just a very dangerous thing when men are willing to give their lives to a cause, and I think it bears examination that it might be stopped in the future.You can't wipe the cause away though if they believe in it. And much of the followers honestly don't know much about their supposed "enemy" other than what they are fed. Unless those individuals are willing to learn for their own...there is nothing anyone can do. Spin can be put on even the most altruistic of actions if one has a mind to do so. Honestly, the most effective tactic is cutting off the metaphorical head. Look at all the intel that the USA captured when they raided Bin Laden's mansion. Guys like Bin Laden obviously have no intention of sacrificing themselves living in cushy Pakistani communities; its the last fundamental hypocrisy to those that they teach death and sacrifice are the ultimate virtue.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11 because of the US military presence in the Middle East. I'm not condoning their attacks, because the USA is frequently there with both the relevant Middle Eastern government's permission and on an altruistic mission. But it's not like these terrorist organisations are attacking the West because they don't like them, it's because they see the West as a fundamental threat to their extremist agenda. Al Qaeda, on a basic level, was distraught with the influence and power the USA was able to enact within the countries it viewed as its own. That's not to justify their methods, or to blame the USA for terrorism, but without US involvement in the Middle East, you would not have terrorists.CannedWormsWhoop-di-do, the US had military bases on Saudi Arabia's soil with the government's permission, which they viewed as "Holy ground". The only thing this proves is that Al-Qaeda ridiculous crusade that contributed to the death of their all-great leader. He got what he deserved in the end. He'll be rotting in hell just about now, and the rest of the jihadists will be joining him soon. Dear God, you didn't bother reading that rapport did you? Maybe this will clear it out, what motivates Al Qaida. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxdb5nnRMrU
[QUOTE="CannedWorms"]Wow, talk about short memory syndrome. Last I knew, America was attacked unprovoked by a worldwide terror organisation. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest Muslim terrorists will give their up Jihad whether or not America is on their soil. In fact they won't, and you know it. Also, I'd happily let in a foreign occupier to rid of terrorists if I lived in one of the most unstable, poor and generally ****est countries in the world.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Of course they have a say in helping create terrorists. By going into other countries in the ME and acting like a bully, manipulating governments, overthrowing others and dropping bombs on their territories it's bound to make many people in the region hate you and want to destroy you. I imagine the same will happen with many "patriotic americans" if they had a foreign culture constantly interfeering with their lives.kuraimen
So no, America doesn't help create terrorists, their "brothers" who brainwash them do that. In addition, we could apply all your theories to the terrorist invasion of non-Muslim countries. "By going into countries, hating their culture, acting like their martyrs, manipulating moderate Muslims, trying to overthrow the native people and committing atrocities on their territory's it's bound to make many in the region hate you and want to destroy you."
In conclusion, we don't want to destroy Muslims way of life, but we'll happily destroy those who commit attacks in the name of Jihad.
Wow if I have short memory syndrome you have no memory syndrome or something worse like imaginary memory syndrome :P The USA trained and funded the mujahideen (taliban) while they took power in Afghanistan and fought the soviets, the back then president Ronald Reagan even called the Taliban heroes and compared them to the american forefathers. Meanwhile bin Laden became very friendly with the Taliban and the US knew that, he also had a lot of anti-western friends yet the US kept pushing Saudi Arabia and other places like Pakistan to do their will, while in the meantime ignoring that a little group called Al Qaeda was being formed with the help of Bin Laden funded by money from many of his companies (many of which had dealings in the US while the US kept being friends with and manipulating bin Laden's family). The Taliban once even proposed giving bin Laden to the US and they refused. By the way the US also helped Saddam's Hussein Baath party in the region and helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadeq in Iran. So if you want to talk about short memory problems I suggest you look at your own since apparently your memory doesn't go back farther than 9/11 which was, in a big way, a consequence of all the shaddy dealings the US has been doing in the region for a long time in exchange for oil and backstabbing allies.By the way if you have any real interest to know what was the US doing in the region while Al Qaeda was being born instead of remaining uninformed and repeating the mantra of how Bin Laden was raised from hell to hurt the US I suggest you read this. It was written in 2000 before the whole 9/11 thing happened and I think pretty much sets the US's responssibility in this whole deal dtraight. Too bad many of the US citizens celebrating in the streets like it is the 4th of july probably ignore or have no interest in any of this. They are bound to repeat the same mistakes over and over and celebrating over and over for the next dead bin Ladens I guess.
How do you possibly compare Muslims celebrating the death of 3,000 INNOCENT people to the death of the man who killed those 3,000 innocent people? I swear, some people's logic is dumbfounding.It just seems to me that America has waged a one man army war on terrorism, granted it had military allies. But do Americans feel that terrorism has mostly affected them? Do they really think that the U.S population is the only one to have ever experienced terrorism? Because the stamp on terrorism, or for some even its definition, seems to be the date, 9/11.
I mean it just feels as though the madrid, london bombings and Mumbai attacks are being entirely neglected, not to mention the IRA that has being doing it for years, funded by Americans.
I think of this only because now some Americans are criticising the European reaction to Bin Laden's death. It seems odd that labels such as 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' would be flying around.
European reaction has on a level been appallment, but of relative silence, compared to American jubiliation.
To me, in appearances, American jubiliation doesn't seem all that different from the Muslims' following the Twin Towers' collapse - yet they were accused of barbarity.
IAMTHEJOKER88
Ok, I'm going to repeat myself.
That youtube link I posted is an interview with Michael F. Scheuer, the head of the Bin Laden unit, from 1996-1999 and 20 years in the CIA. If you after watching this interview still can't understand their motivation for attack then there is no helping you.
It's like watching that Ron Paul vs Ben Stein debate, where Ron Paul debates with reason and Ben Stein pulls the anti semitic card, when he can't debate.
Here is the link, WATCH IT for you own education, this isn't some random guy or fake expert talking head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxdb5nnRMrU
[QUOTE="CannedWorms"]Wow, talk about short memory syndrome. Last I knew, America was attacked unprovoked by a worldwide terror organisation. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest Muslim terrorists will give their up Jihad whether or not America is on their soil. In fact they won't, and you know it. Also, I'd happily let in a foreign occupier to rid of terrorists if I lived in one of the most unstable, poor and generally ****est countries in the world.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Of course they have a say in helping create terrorists. By going into other countries in the ME and acting like a bully, manipulating governments, overthrowing others and dropping bombs on their territories it's bound to make many people in the region hate you and want to destroy you. I imagine the same will happen with many "patriotic americans" if they had a foreign culture constantly interfeering with their lives.kuraimen
So no, America doesn't help create terrorists, their "brothers" who brainwash them do that. In addition, we could apply all your theories to the terrorist invasion of non-Muslim countries. "By going into countries, hating their culture, acting like their martyrs, manipulating moderate Muslims, trying to overthrow the native people and committing atrocities on their territory's it's bound to make many in the region hate you and want to destroy you."
In conclusion, we don't want to destroy Muslims way of life, but we'll happily destroy those who commit attacks in the name of Jihad.
Wow if I have short memory syndrome you have no memory syndrome or something worse like imaginary memory syndrome :P The USA trained and funded the mujahideen (taliban) while they took power in Afghanistan and fought the soviets, the back then president Ronald Reagan even called the Taliban heroes and compared them to the american forefathers. Meanwhile bin Laden became very friendly with the Taliban and the US knew that, he also had a lot of anti-western friends yet the US kept pushing Saudi Arabia and other places like Pakistan to do their will, while in the meantime ignoring that a little group called Al Qaeda was being formed with the help of Bin Laden funded by money from many of his companies (many of which had dealings in the US while the US kept being friends with and manipulating bin Laden's family). The Taliban once even proposed giving bin Laden to the US and they refused. By the way the US also helped Saddam's Hussein Baath party in the region and helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadeq in Iran. So if you want to talk about short memory problems I suggest you look at your own since apparently your memory doesn't go back farther than 9/11 which was, in a big way, a consequence of all the shaddy dealings the US has been doing in the region for a long time in exchange for oil and backstabbing allies. Uh, who's saying that the Taliban was thought of by the US to be terrorists at the time? The US government may have had the misconception that they were "Freedom fighters" against communism. They would understandly side with anything that didn't promote ultra-leftism. The Taliban weren't so bad back then anyway. The USA did not create the Taliban, therefore you're argument of the US "creating terrorists" is misguided and, well, wrong. And so what if the government ignored al-Qaeda before 9/11? They didn't directly intervene until provoked. This is the debate being proposed, it's not important at all if America dismissed a new-found terror organisation that was thousands of miles within their reach.So, America didn't "create" anything. The terrorism problem that occurs around the world shouldn't be associated with the US, that's my point. The Jihadists of today is the product of misrepresentation of 1400 year old book. If it was up to me, all foreign countries would leave the ****-hole that is the Middle East and let them continue killing each other for as long as it takes for them to realise that the west isn't responsible for their problems.
Wow if I have short memory syndrome you have no memory syndrome or something worse like imaginary memory syndrome :P The USA trained and funded the mujahideen (taliban) while they took power in Afghanistan and fought the soviets, the back then president Ronald Reagan even called the Taliban heroes and compared them to the american forefathers. Meanwhile bin Laden became very friendly with the Taliban and the US knew that, he also had a lot of anti-western friends yet the US kept pushing Saudi Arabia and other places like Pakistan to do their will, while in the meantime ignoring that a little group called Al Qaeda was being formed with the help of Bin Laden funded by money from many of his companies (many of which had dealings in the US while the US kept being friends with and manipulating bin Laden's family). The Taliban once even proposed giving bin Laden to the US and they refused. By the way the US also helped Saddam's Hussein Baath party in the region and helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadeq in Iran. So if you want to talk about short memory problems I suggest you look at your own since apparently your memory doesn't go back farther than 9/11 which was, in a big way, a consequence of all the shaddy dealings the US has been doing in the region for a long time in exchange for oil and backstabbing allies. Uh, who's saying that the Taliban was thought of by the US to be terrorists at the time? The US government may have had the misconception that they were "Freedom fighters" against communism. They would understandly side with anything that didn't promote ultra-leftism. The Taliban weren't so bad back then anyway. The USA did not create the Taliban, therefore you're argument of the US "creating terrorists" is misguided and, well, wrong. And so what if the government ignored al-Qaeda before 9/11? They didn't directly intervene until provoked. This is the debate being proposed, it's not important at all if America dismissed a new-found terror organisation that was thousands of miles within their reach.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="CannedWorms"]Wow, talk about short memory syndrome. Last I knew, America was attacked unprovoked by a worldwide terror organisation. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest Muslim terrorists will give their up Jihad whether or not America is on their soil. In fact they won't, and you know it. Also, I'd happily let in a foreign occupier to rid of terrorists if I lived in one of the most unstable, poor and generally ****est countries in the world.
So no, America doesn't help create terrorists, their "brothers" who brainwash them do that. In addition, we could apply all your theories to the terrorist invasion of non-Muslim countries. "By going into countries, hating their culture, acting like their martyrs, manipulating moderate Muslims, trying to overthrow the native people and committing atrocities on their territory's it's bound to make many in the region hate you and want to destroy you."
In conclusion, we don't want to destroy Muslims way of life, but we'll happily destroy those who commit attacks in the name of Jihad.
CannedWorms
So, America didn't "create" anything. The terrorism problem that occurs around the world shouldn't be associated with the US, that's my point. The Jihadists of today is the product of misrepresentation of 1400 year old book. If it was up to me, all foreign countries would leave the ****-hole that is the Middle East and let them continue killing each other for as long as it takes for them to realise that the west isn't responsible for their problems.
Like the link I posted before and the video m25105 posted, the US was not ignorant to who they were dealing with and why they were dealing with them. The US government was not stupid, they knew what they wanted (mainly to control the region's oil and excerpt overall influence in the region), they acted in a bullish way with many of those governments and populations and helped set the environment for groups like Al Qaeda to flourish and focus on the west. So how the hell are they not responssible in part? what would happen on ANY country if a foreign country did the same the US did there? Of course extremist groups will be born and they will have a lot of hate towards that country interfeering in theirs. Hell even a one day attack like 9/11 made the US government start two bogus wars and kill thousand of innocent people in the process now imagine it wasn't just a day by years and decades of constant influence, bombing, pressure, etc, the US would probably destroy the whole world if that happened to them.Why am I seeing claims that the Mujahideen and Taliban were/are one and the same and that both were funded by the US in the Soviet-Afghan war? For starters, the Taliban was founded after the war in the 1990s, if I recall, so there's no way it could have been trained or funded by the US. Also,it is seperate ofthe Mujahideen in many respects. The Taliban even assassinated a senior Maujahideen figure. Mujahideen =/= the militant jihadists today, and to say so is to do a disservice to the former. More information here.
I've seen more Europeans hating on Americans than the other way around in the last few days, TBH. fidosim
I thought the entire basis for this thread was focused in the wrong direction. I've seen far more criticism of some Americans reaction coming from the American left and Europe. I haven't really read or seen very much criticism of Europe's reaction coming from the United States.
[QUOTE="fidosim"]I've seen more Europeans hating on Americans than the other way around in the last few days, TBH. UnknownSniper65
I thought the entire basis for this thread was focused in the wrong direction. I've seen far more criticism of some Americans reaction coming from the American left and Europe. I haven't really read or seen very much criticism of Europe's reaction coming from the United States.
I don't think there has been any....Why am I seeing claims that the Mujahideen and Taliban were/are one and the same and that both were funded by the US in the Soviet-Afghan war? For starters, the Taliban was founded after the war in the 1990s, if I recall, so there's no way it could have been trained or funded by the US. Also,it is seperate ofthe Mujahideen in many respects. The Taliban even assassinated a senior Maujahideen figure. Mujahideen =/= the militant jihadists today, and to say so is to do a disservice to the former. More information here.
Verge_6
I've probably said this dozens of times over the years I've spent posting on this forum and people have always ignored it.
[QUOTE="Verge_6"]
Why am I seeing claims that the Mujahideen and Taliban were/are one and the same and that both were funded by the US in the Soviet-Afghan war? For starters, the Taliban was founded after the war in the 1990s, if I recall, so there's no way it could have been trained or funded by the US. Also,it is seperate ofthe Mujahideen in many respects. The Taliban even assassinated a senior Maujahideen figure. Mujahideen =/= the militant jihadists today, and to say so is to do a disservice to the former. More information here.
UnknownSniper65
I've probably said this dozens of times over the years I've spent posting on this forum and people have always ignored it.
Of course it's gonna be ignored, that kind of punctures the whole "US directly funded and trained a terrorist organization that attacked them later on, serves them right!" lunacy.[QUOTE="Verge_6"]
Why am I seeing claims that the Mujahideen and Taliban were/are one and the same and that both were funded by the US in the Soviet-Afghan war? For starters, the Taliban was founded after the war in the 1990s, if I recall, so there's no way it could have been trained or funded by the US. Also,it is seperate ofthe Mujahideen in many respects. The Taliban even assassinated a senior Maujahideen figure. Mujahideen =/= the militant jihadists today, and to say so is to do a disservice to the former. More information here.
UnknownSniper65
I've probably said this dozens of times over the years I've spent posting on this forum and people have always ignored it.
That is indeed true.
You are right that the Mujahideen and the Taliban were not the same, my mistake, but they did work together like many of the members of Al Qaeda are mujahideen and they supported the Taliban but, despite of that, the links we have posted here show how the US helped the mujahideen against the soviets and, after that, they supported the Taliban.Why am I seeing claims that the Mujahideen and Taliban were/are one and the same and that both were funded by the US in the Soviet-Afghan war? For starters, the Taliban was founded after the war in the 1990s, if I recall, so there's no way it could have been trained or funded by the US. Also,it is seperate ofthe Mujahideen in many respects. The Taliban even assassinated a senior Maujahideen figure. Mujahideen =/= the militant jihadists today, and to say so is to do a disservice to the former. More information here.
Verge_6
[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]
Why am I seeing claims that the Mujahideen and Taliban were/are one and the same and that both were funded by the US in the Soviet-Afghan war? For starters, the Taliban was founded after the war in the 1990s, if I recall, so there's no way it could have been trained or funded by the US. Also,it is seperate ofthe Mujahideen in many respects. The Taliban even assassinated a senior Maujahideen figure. Mujahideen =/= the militant jihadists today, and to say so is to do a disservice to the former. More information here.
Verge_6
I've probably said this dozens of times over the years I've spent posting on this forum and people have always ignored it.
Of course it's gonna be ignored, that kind of punctures the whole "US directly funded and trained a terrorist organization that attacked them later on, serves them right!" lunacy. The lunacy is using that mistake to justify ignoring all the evidence that has been posted here of the US damaging influence in the region.[QUOTE="Verge_6"]You are right that the Mujahideen and the Taliban were not the same, my mistake, but they did work together like many of the members of Al Qaeda are mujahideen and they supported the Taliban but, despite of that, the links we have posted here show how the US helped the mujahideen against the soviets and, after that, they supported the Taliban.So? That doesn't mean they created the Taliban dude.Why am I seeing claims that the Mujahideen and Taliban were/are one and the same and that both were funded by the US in the Soviet-Afghan war? For starters, the Taliban was founded after the war in the 1990s, if I recall, so there's no way it could have been trained or funded by the US. Also,it is seperate ofthe Mujahideen in many respects. The Taliban even assassinated a senior Maujahideen figure. Mujahideen =/= the militant jihadists today, and to say so is to do a disservice to the former. More information here.
kuraimen
There should be history books made specifically for Fox viewers. They could be no longer than 5 pages and with pictures maybe that will do.Apparently the Pentagon and the CIA is not a valid source when it comes to understanding why Bin Laden was determined to attack America.
Fox talking heads more credible, right?
m25105
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]You are right that the Mujahideen and the Taliban were not the same, my mistake, but they did work together like many of the members of Al Qaeda are mujahideen and they supported the Taliban but, despite of that, the links we have posted here show how the US helped the mujahideen against the soviets and, after that, they supported the Taliban.So? That doesn't mean they created the Taliban dude. Where did I say they created the Taliban? I said their influence helped create the terrorist factions now and that they supported the Taliban.Why am I seeing claims that the Mujahideen and Taliban were/are one and the same and that both were funded by the US in the Soviet-Afghan war? For starters, the Taliban was founded after the war in the 1990s, if I recall, so there's no way it could have been trained or funded by the US. Also,it is seperate ofthe Mujahideen in many respects. The Taliban even assassinated a senior Maujahideen figure. Mujahideen =/= the militant jihadists today, and to say so is to do a disservice to the former. More information here.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]Of course it's gonna be ignored, that kind of punctures the whole "US directly funded and trained a terrorist organization that attacked them later on, serves them right!" lunacy. The lunacy is using that mistake to justify ignoring all the evidence that has been posted here of the US damaging influence in the region. I've never said I was ignoring anything, simply correcting a rather glaring mistake. Why must you insist on putting words in people's mouths?I've probably said this dozens of times over the years I've spent posting on this forum and people have always ignored it.
kuraimen
Why do Americans care so much about how the Europeans react?m45t3rch13fwe don't...they have yet to post anything saying to prove his topic title...at all....this whole thread has turned into criticism of the US's reaction to Bin Laden's Death....
The lunacy is using that mistake to justify ignoring all the evidence that has been posted here of the US damaging influence in the region. I've never said I was ignoring anything, simply correcting a rather glaring mistake. Why must you insist on putting words in people's mouths? It seemed to me you were saying that the US had no influence of what happened in 9/11 but if that wasn't the case I apologize.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Verge_6"] Of course it's gonna be ignored, that kind of punctures the whole "US directly funded and trained a terrorist organization that attacked them later on, serves them right!" lunacy.Verge_6
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So? That doesn't mean they created the Taliban dude.LJS9502_basicWhere did I say they created the Taliban? I said their influence helped create the terrorist factions now and that they supported the Taliban. Which basically means nothing. You can be friends with someone but that doesn't mean it's your fault when they grow up and go on a crime wave now does it? Friends? :roll: have you even bother reading any of the sources posted? maybe if you call bullies friends. And again how do you think americans will react another country constantly bullying them in THEIR territory and telling them what to do. Americans love of anything with the word free on it tells me they wouldn't take it very kindly.
[QUOTE="Verge_6"]I've never said I was ignoring anything, simply correcting a rather glaring mistake. Why must you insist on putting words in people's mouths? It seemed to me you were saying that the US had no influence of what happened in 9/11 Of course they had some form of influence. They were the chief importer of Kalashnikovs in the region alone. It's simply incredibly asinine to claim that the US knowingly trained and funded a terrorist organization and that said organization came back and bit them decades later. The US trained Mujahideen, legitimate freedom fighters that actually came under attack by the militant Taliban after the Soviet-Aghan war.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The lunacy is using that mistake to justify ignoring all the evidence that has been posted here of the US damaging influence in the region.kuraimen
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Where did I say they created the Taliban? I said their influence helped create the terrorist factions now and that they supported the Taliban.kuraimenWhich basically means nothing. You can be friends with someone but that doesn't mean it's your fault when they grow up and go on a crime wave now does it? Friends? :roll: have you even bother reading any of the sources posted? maybe if you call bullies friends. And again how do you think americans will react another country constantly bullying them in THEIR territory and telling them what to do. Americans love of anything with the word free on it tells me they wouldn't take it very kindly. It was an analogy to show how the point of the past doesn't much matter when it comes to collaboration in the early days. And it doesn't. Oh please.....there was no bulling....they liked the relationship.:roll: But that does not mean the US created or encouraged the Taliban.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Verge_6"] I've never said I was ignoring anything, simply correcting a rather glaring mistake. Why must you insist on putting words in people's mouths?It seemed to me you were saying that the US had no influence of what happened in 9/11 Of course they had some form of influence. They were the chief importer of Kalashnikovs in the region alone. It's simply incredibly asinine to claim that the US knowingly trained and funded a terrorist organization and that said organization came back and bit them decades later. The US trained Mujahideen, legitimate freedom fighters that actually came under attack by the militant Taliban after the Soviet-Aghan war.Verge_6
The label of terrorist and freedom fighter is completely arbitrary and instrumental in this case. They also helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran, I wonder what any american will call a resistance movement trying to overthrow their democratically elected government like. The main thing is that US influence in that region had nothing to do with supporting what's right, freedom or democracy, it had to do with other bigger reasons for them like oil. And many people in the ME are not stupid and realize that. Another big group apparently will be willing to blow everything up to make it stop.
Friends? :roll: have you even bother reading any of the sources posted? maybe if you call bullies friends. And again how do you think americans will react another country constantly bullying them in THEIR territory and telling them what to do. Americans love of anything with the word free on it tells me they wouldn't take it very kindly. It was an analogy to show how the point of the past doesn't much matter when it comes to collaboration in the early days. And it doesn't. Oh please.....there was no bulling....they liked the relationship.:roll: But that does not mean the US created or encouraged the Taliban. Again read the links provided before, they come from sources like the CIA and army generals. There was a lot of bullying going on. Otherwise it is like talking to a wall or Fox News.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Which basically means nothing. You can be friends with someone but that doesn't mean it's your fault when they grow up and go on a crime wave now does it?LJS9502_basic
Of course they had some form of influence. They were the chief importer of Kalashnikovs in the region alone. It's simply incredibly asinine to claim that the US knowingly trained and funded a terrorist organization and that said organization came back and bit them decades later. The US trained Mujahideen, legitimate freedom fighters that actually came under attack by the militant Taliban after the Soviet-Aghan war.[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] It seemed to me you were saying that the US had no influence of what happened in 9/11 kuraimen
The label of terrorist and freedom fighter is completely arbitrary and instrumental in this case. They also helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran, I wonder what any american will call a resistance movement trying to overthrow their democratically elected government like. The main thing is that US influence in that region had nothing to do with supporting what's right, freedom or democracy, it had to do with other bigger reasons for them like oil. And many people in the ME are not stupid and realize that. Another big group apparently will be willing to blow everything up to make it stop.
Everyone here knows your agenda, and I'm not here to argue it (I'm better off trying to convince a rock that it can talk and should engage in conversation). You made a claim that the US trained and funded the Taliban, and that this came back to bite them. This is false, as the Taliban didn't exist then and they certainly did not equate to the Mujahideen even after they WERE formed. Facts is facts, have fun with your debate.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]It was an analogy to show how the point of the past doesn't much matter when it comes to collaboration in the early days. And it doesn't. Oh please.....there was no bulling....they liked the relationship.:roll: But that does not mean the US created or encouraged the Taliban. Again read the links provided before, they come from sources like the CIA and army generals. There was a lot of bullying going on. Otherwise it is like talking to a wall or Fox News.Ah yes the appeal to Fox News.:lol: I don't watch Fox News. And I'd imagine you do not either.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Friends? :roll: have you even bother reading any of the sources posted? maybe if you call bullies friends. And again how do you think americans will react another country constantly bullying them in THEIR territory and telling them what to do. Americans love of anything with the word free on it tells me they wouldn't take it very kindly.kuraimen
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Verge_6"] Of course they had some form of influence. They were the chief importer of Kalashnikovs in the region alone. It's simply incredibly asinine to claim that the US knowingly trained and funded a terrorist organization and that said organization came back and bit them decades later. The US trained Mujahideen, legitimate freedom fighters that actually came under attack by the militant Taliban after the Soviet-Aghan war. Verge_6
The label of terrorist and freedom fighter is completely arbitrary and instrumental in this case. They also helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran, I wonder what any american will call a resistance movement trying to overthrow their democratically elected government like. The main thing is that US influence in that region had nothing to do with supporting what's right, freedom or democracy, it had to do with other bigger reasons for them like oil. And many people in the ME are not stupid and realize that. Another big group apparently will be willing to blow everything up to make it stop.
Everyone here knows your agenda, and I'm not here to argue it (I'm better off trying to convince a rock that it can talk and should engage in conversation). You made a claim that the US trained and funded the Taliban, and that this came back to bite them. This is false, as the Taliban didn't exist then and they certainly did not equate to the Mujahideen even after they WERE formed. Facts is facts, have fun with your debate.:| Surely you jest, the United States full well knew the people they were arming and training.. The fact of the matter is they didn't think the religious extremists were as big a threat as the Soviet Union.. The US full well knew who they were putting in power in Iran for instance.. Noam Chomsky said it best..Its hard for the United States to clear up their image that the Middle East sees them as.. Because most of the views are best on truth and fact.
The fact of the matter is they didn't think the religious extremists were as big a threat as the Soviet Union.. sSubZerOoSurely you just. The US did know who they were funding and training. Hint; it wasn't a terrorist organization, nor something revolving around religious extremism. Are you seriously implying that the US knowingly funded an organization that revolved around terrorism and anti-Westernism? Where are people getting this idea that any Muslim organization that uses arms are religious extremists? Again, Mujahideen =/= Taliban, and the Taliban never even existed during the Soviet-Afghan war. That's what I states. Are we done here, or is there more typical anti-American partisanship on the way?
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] The fact of the matter is they didn't think the religious extremists were as big a threat as the Soviet Union.. Verge_6Again, Mujahideen =/= Taliban, and the Taliban never even existed during the Soviet-Afghan war. That's what I states. Are we done here, or is there more typical anti-American partisanship on the way?
More anti American partisanship? So we can't be critical of Cold War Policy of the US? Yet again these guys were religious extremists they were not nationalists, they were not socialistis.. This is nothing new, the US has had a history within the Middle East of supporting questionable leadership and forces.. Are you seriously trying to defend these kind of policies? And where exactly did I say America is skeletor? I am a American my self.. God forbid if we are critical of past policies.
I'm an American and I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to European reactions. In the case of 9/11, that's the first time the U.S. has successfullybeen attacked by someone outside of our borders, that's why the date is important here. I'm sure in Europe the dates or locations are held in higher regard, if not then I'm surprised.
lowkey254
/Facepalm
Do these guys ring a bell?
=
Yet another American that 'forgot' the wars it had with Britain, and the fact that the British burned down the white house and took over the capital. (And burned down public buildings but spared the private ones out of mercy)
So you will never forget 9/11, the day AL Qaida crashed a plane in 2 of your tallest buildings, yet no one seems to even achknowledge the English burning down THE PRESIDENTS HOUSE. (and control over the city)
No. Their foundation was Islam, but they were not centralized around religious extremism. Why do people insist on confusing the Mujahideen with terrorist groups?[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Yet again these guys were religious extremists Verge_6
Thats exaclty what they were though.. This was not a secular government.. They practiced sharia law, and were a bunch of tribal kingdoms.. This was no different from what we have seen in Saudi Arabia.. The United States was not enemies with fundamentalist Islamists as of yet.. The boiling point only turned this way once with the overthrow of the Shah in Iran.. Where a theocracy was borned that was directly demonizing the US.. That being said yet again, arming these rebels were never a bright idea to begin with..
No. Their foundation was Islam, but they were not centralized around religious extremism. Why do people insist on confusing the Mujahideen with terrorist groups?[QUOTE="Verge_6"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Yet again these guys were religious extremists sSubZerOo
Thats exaclty what they were though.. This was not a secular government.. They practiced sharia law, and were a bunch of tribal kingdoms.. This was no different from what we have seen in Saudi Arabia.. The United States was not enemies with fundamentalist Islamists as of yet.. The boiling point only turned this way once with the overthrow of the Shah in Iran.. Where a theocracy was borned that was directly demonizing the US.. That being said yet again, arming these rebels were never a bright idea to begin with..
What does the group following Sharia Law have to do with what he's saying? Different groups do follow Sharia Law.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment