• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Op-ed: Al-Qaida is stronger today than it was on 9/11

The reasons are as old a time. When societies or at least larger segments of a society are marginalized economically, socially, politically or theologically and someone comes along and offers prospects for change people will follow. The offers can be genuine or misleading motivated by power hunger and the outcomes need not be positive, but the initial desire for the change will still drive people to "fight" in some form. Only when the real underlying reasons are mitigated, will the willingness to fight diminish.
 
prometeus said:
The reasons are as old a time. When societies or at least larger segments of a society are marginalized economically, socially, politically or theologically and someone comes along and offers prospects for change people will follow. The offers can be genuine or misleading motivated by power hunger and the outcomes need not be positive, but the initial desire for the change will still drive people to "fight" in some form. Only when the real underlying reasons are mitigated, will the willingness to fight diminish.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Were you aware of the fact that very few of the "peasant uprisings" in Tzarist Russia were uprising AGAINST the Tzar? Mostly they were against local abuses of power and based on "The Tzar would not have tolerated if he had known that they were happening and this is the only way that we can let the Tzar know that they are happening because the local leaders and authorities are the ones who are doing the things that the Tzar would not approve of if he knew about them.".

It is an inescapable fact of life that the people "at the bottom of the heap" have no one lower in the heap to fight against and/or persecute and/or oppress. That means that "peasant revolutions" ALWAYS erupt upwards. "Middle Class revolutions" can go either way, and "Upper Class revolutions" generally involve only the changing of bums in chairs of power (or riches).

PS - You should also remember that it is NOT necessary that that segment of society ACTUALLY be "marginalized economically, socially, politically or theologically", all that is necessary is that it BELIEVE that it is "marginalized economically, socially, politically or theologically".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Were you aware of the fact that very few of the "peasant uprisings" in Tzarist Russia were uprising AGAINST the Tzar? Mostly they were against local abuses of power and based on "The Tzar would not have tolerated if he had known that they were happening and this is the only way that we can let the Tzar know that they are happening because the local leaders and authorities are the ones who are doing the things that the Tzar would not approve of if he knew about them."
Click to expand...
Yes, but it goes a lot further back, all the way to biblical times.

PS - You should also remember that it is NOT necessary that that segment of society ACTUALLY be "marginalized economically, socially, politically or theologically", all that is necessary is that it BELIEVE that it is "marginalized economically, socially, politically or theologically".
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you, great point.
 
prometeus said:
Yes, but it goes a lot further back, all the way to biblical times.
Click to expand...

Where the "Great Ruler" has the option of remaining out of personal contact with the lowest socioeconomic classes, it's always been "good politics" for the "Great Ruler" to foster the delusion that any abuses were directly and solely caused by the socioeconomic class just above the lowest socioeconomic classes and that they "simply would not have stood for them if they had known about them".

prometeus said:
Yes, thank you, great point.
Click to expand...

"Belief" carries more weight than "fact" in decision making (despite the fact that what some people "believe" is also "fact").
 
Fledermaus said:
What a completely ignorant statement.

When speaking of the major players in 9/11 you are talking about college educated individuals, in some cases engineers, that were radicalized, in Europe, not the middle east. Osama Bin Laden helped run one of the largest construction companies before he ran off to Jihad.

That and he had a gazillion dollars
Click to expand...

Nothing like the threat of college educated individuals with box cutters to justify rebuilding American military.
 
Mycroft said:
What caused the "war on terror"?

Oh yeah...Al Qaida's attack on the US.

btw, regarding the question: "So how does a religious extremist group with fewer than a hundred members in September 2001 become a transnational terror organization, even as the world’s biggest military has targeted it for elimination?" The answer is simple: Money.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the Al Qaeda attacks were the ultimate response to decades of meddling, interference and de-stablising of the Middle East by Western 'democracies'. Don't like payback? Don't go where you're not wanted simply for geo-political interests. We, the West, began all this, and now listen to all the whining about 'evil Muslims' for daring to fight back. DO NOT misread this as in any way being supportive of terrorism. Remember what the man said; 'a terrorist is one who has a bomb but not an air force'.

What Should We Learn from 40 Years of U.S. Intervention in the Middle East? | The National Interest
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
I think you'll find that the Al Qaeda attacks were a response to decades of meddling, interference and de-stablising of the Middle East by Western 'democracies'. Don't like payback? Don't go where you're not wanted simply for geo-political interests. We, the West, began all this, and now listen to all the whining about 'evil Muslims' for daring to fight back. DO NOT misread this as in any way being supportive of terrorism. Remember what the man said; 'a terrorist is one who has a bomb but not an air force'.

What Should We Learn from 40 Years of U.S. Intervention in the Middle East? | The National Interest
Click to expand...

What.

The.

****.

Are you seriously trying to justify Al Qaeda’s atrocities?

I get that you like reading tankie bull**** from idiots like William “bombing people in the middle of committing genocide is terrorism” Blum and Grover “Stalin was totally awesome you guys” Furr but this is a new low.

This was “begun” due to the psychotic actions of one man—Osama Bin Laden. And no matter how much you try to blame the victims(considering that most of Al Qaeda’s victims are Muslims, claiming that they are just “fighting back” is flat out ignorant) the facts remain the same.
 
dixon01767 said:
Nothing like the threat of college educated individuals with box cutters to justify rebuilding American military.
Click to expand...

Intentional ignorance of the weapons and the methods used.

You do understand these individuals were able to hijack four aircraft using only bladed weapons and threats....

Right?

And if you READ the PNAC document you might realize it downplayed the roles of multi gazillion dollar aircraft carriers and aircraft. It is a POST COLD WAR doctrine.
 
snakestretcher said:
I think you'll find that the Al Qaeda attacks were the ultimate response to decades of meddling, interference and de-stablising of the Middle East by Western 'democracies'. Don't like payback? Don't go where you're not wanted simply for geo-political interests. We, the West, began all this, and now listen to all the whining about 'evil Muslims' for daring to fight back. DO NOT misread this as in any way being supportive of terrorism. Remember what the man said; 'a terrorist is one who has a bomb but not an air force'.

What Should We Learn from 40 Years of U.S. Intervention in the Middle East? | The National Interest
Click to expand...

The roots stretch back much further than 40 years. In fact they go back to around 1858 when the first (and generally peaceful that was prepared to "work within the system") movement to oust the existing system of "A government of 'X', by the servants of 'Y', and for the profit of the rich elite of 'Y'" in favour of "A government of 'X', by the people of 'X', and for the people of 'X'" arose in India.

It lost that struggle and was replaced by one that was less peaceful and less prepared to "work within the system".

That replacement lost the struggle and was replaced by one that was less peaceful and less prepared to "work within the system".

That replacement lost the struggle and was replaced by one that was less peaceful and less prepared to "work within the system".

That replacement lost the struggle and was replaced by one that was less peaceful and less prepared to "work within the system".

That replacement lost the struggle and was replaced by one that was less peaceful and less prepared to "work within the system".

That replacement lost the struggle and was replaced by one that was less peaceful and less prepared to "work within the system".

That replacement lost the struggle and was replaced by one that was less peaceful and less prepared to "work within the system".

That ...
 
Tigerace117 said:
What.

The.

****.

Are you seriously trying to justify Al Qaeda’s atrocities?
Click to expand...

You do realize that there is a difference between "justifying the develipment" and "pointing out that the development was almost inevitable" - don'[t you?

On second thought ...

Tigerace117 said:
This was “begun” due to the psychotic actions of one man—Osama Bin Laden. And no matter how much you try to blame the victims(considering that most of Al Qaeda’s victims are Muslims, claiming that they are just “fighting back” is flat out ignorant) the facts remain the same.
Click to expand...

Thank you for displaying a phenomenal lack of knowledge of modern (defined as "Post 1800") history as well as an impressive lack of knowledge of what Osama bin Laden's original positions were.
 
TrueScotsman said:
A commie dictatorship ruled by a Muslim theocracy?

How would that work exactly?
Click to expand...

That would work however the propagandists want it to work. The narrative will be fashioned and then refined, and in to time at all, whether imaginary or real, the US public will buy it.

This nonsense about AQ is merely propaganda efforts. What I wonder is how many individuals actually work for the Ministry Of Information in constructing such nonsensical narratives?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You do realize that there is a difference between "justifying the develipment" and "pointing out that the development was almost inevitable" - don'[t you?

On second thought ...



Thank you for displaying a phenomenal lack of knowledge of modern (defined as "Post 1800") history as well as an impressive lack of knowledge of what Osama bin Laden's original positions were.
Click to expand...

Claiming that Al Qaeda’s attacks on the west and murder of innocent people are justified because “blowback” is idiotic, especially since Osama’s initial issue—- the US defending Saudi Arabia against Iraq—- was done at the request of the Saudis themselves.

Al Qaeda is not killing people because government X was overthrown sixty years ago. Al Qaeda is killing people because they are psychotic and because they are attempting to establish Islamist regimes today.

Thank you for showing off your usual ignorance, but considering your usual position is blithering about how you think brutal anti American dictatorship X is totally in the right, it’s no surprise you’d double down on the stupidity.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
[...I know this without even bothering to read the research because LEFTIES never have any point at all because all LEFTIES are interested in doing is destroying the United States of America and turning it into a COMMIE DICTATORSHIP rules by a MUSLIM THEOCRACY."
Click to expand...

Well yah, that's the first thing they taught us at Leftist School.
 
snakestretcher said:
I think you'll find that the Al Qaeda attacks were the ultimate response to decades of meddling, interference and de-stablising of the Middle East by Western 'democracies'.
Click to expand...

Nonsense


But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates: America’s first confrontation with the Islamic world helped forge a new nation’s character. | City Journal
Click to expand...


Same ****, different day.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Claiming that Al Qaeda’s attacks on the west and murder of innocent people are justified because “blowback” is idiotic, especially since Osama’s initial issue—- the US defending Saudi Arabia against Iraq—- was done at the request of the Saudis themselves.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that the attacks were "justified" only that they were inevitable.

Tigerace117 said:
Al Qaeda is not killing people because government X was overthrown sixty years ago. Al Qaeda is killing people because they are psychotic and because they are attempting to establish Islamist regimes today.
Click to expand...

And the reason why they want to establish "Islamist regimes" is that the desire to establish independent NON-Islamist regimes has been frustrated since the mid 1800s.

Tigerace117 said:
Thank you for showing off your usual ignorance, but considering your usual position is blithering about how you think brutal anti American dictatorship X is totally in the right, it’s no surprise you’d double down on the stupidity.
Click to expand...

Considering that my position is that ANY brutal dictatorship is totally "in the wrong" REGARDLESS of whether it is "pro-American" or "anti-American" I have considered your point carefully and have concluded that it is, indeed, a frustum.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I never claimed that the attacks were "justified" only that they were inevitable.



And the reason why they want to establish "Islamist regimes" is that the desire to establish independent NON-Islamist regimes has been frustrated since the mid 1800s.



Considering that my position is that ANY brutal dictatorship is totally "in the wrong" REGARDLESS of whether it is "pro-American" or "anti-American" I have considered your point carefully and have concluded that it is, indeed, a frustum.
Click to expand...

Considering that Al Qaeda has not even bothered to try to establish a non-Islamist regime, that non-Islamist regimes run contrary to Al Qaeda's stated ideology and indeed that they are actively fighting against non Islamist regimes across the world, your claim is rather silly.

Except, of course, when that brutal dictatorship is Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or any other anti American regime. Then they have your full support.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Considering that Al Qaeda has not even bothered to try to establish a non-Islamist regime, that non-Islamist regimes run contrary to Al Qaeda's stated ideology and indeed that they are actively fighting against non Islamist regimes across the world, your claim is rather silly.
Click to expand...

Since the earlier attempts to establish "non-Islamist" regimes failed, the shift towards attempts to establish "Islamist" regimes was inevitable - at least for any people who didn't want to live under a government that was "of the people of __[fill in the blank]__, by the people not of __[fill in the blank]__. and for the people of not __[fill in the blank]__.

Tigerace117 said:
Except, of course, when that brutal dictatorship is Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or any other anti American regime. Then they have your full support.
Click to expand...

How any intelligent and literate person (which I presume you to be) could manage to get that out of "ANY brutal dictatorship is totally 'in the wrong' REGARDLESS of whether it is 'pro-American' or 'anti-American'" is totally beyond me. Other people may not share my presumption.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Since the earlier attempts to establish "non-Islamist" regimes failed, the shift towards attempts to establish "Islamist" regimes was inevitable - at least for any people who didn't want to live under a government that was "of the people of __[fill in the blank]__, by the people not of __[fill in the blank]__. and for the people of not __[fill in the blank]__.



How any intelligent and literate person (which I presume you to be) could manage to get that out of "ANY brutal dictatorship is totally 'in the wrong' REGARDLESS of whether it is 'pro-American' or 'anti-American'" is totally beyond me. Other people may not share my presumption.
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda is actively and violently opposed to non Islamist governments, and regimes they have supported such as the Taliban in Afghanistan certainly were not representative governments which allowed their people a say.

Except the numerous threads you have made defending brutal dictatorships shows that to be a complete load of crap, but hey, you are good at ignoring inconvenient facts, so that's something.
 
snakestretcher said:
No, don't be silly. That's your reading, not my intention. My post was quite clear; poke a tiger by all means, but don't act outraged when it bites back.
Click to expand...

You claimed that the US “bullied” the brutal terrorists. You claimed that the attacks were “payback” for “going where we weren’t wanted”(a rather amusing reading given that Osama’s initial beef with the US, our defense of Saudi Arabia against Saddam’s Iraq, was requested by the Saudis themselves). You also justified the attacks as AQ “fighting back” and whined about the brutal terrorists being called evil.....which they absolutely safe.

Yes, your attempt to justify 9/11 and AQ’s other atrocities was quite clear. I suppose it’s hardly surprising given that you think Grover “Stalin was totally awesome you guys” Furr and William “bombing people in the middle of committing genocide is terrorism” Blum are legitimate sources.
 
Tigerace117 said:
You claimed that the US “bullied” the brutal terrorists. You claimed that the attacks were “payback” for “going where we weren’t wanted”(a rather amusing reading given that Osama’s initial beef with the US, our defense of Saudi Arabia against Saddam’s Iraq, was requested by the Saudis themselves). You also justified the attacks as AQ “fighting back” and whined about the brutal terrorists being called evil.....which they absolutely safe.

Yes, your attempt to justify 9/11 and AQ’s other atrocities was quite clear. I suppose it’s hardly surprising given that you think Grover “Stalin was totally awesome you guys” Furr and William “bombing people in the middle of committing genocide is terrorism” Blum are legitimate sources.
Click to expand...

This goes back way further than bin Laden. I justified nothing-and I made that quite clear! Decades of meddling in the middle east and you expect no consequences? If that's too difficult a concept for you to figure out I don't know what else to suggest. Perhaps you also believe that America is spreading 'Freedom and Democracy' wherever it suits its 'interests'. Remember when America was taken to the ICJ and convicted of numerous breaches of international law against Nicaragua? I expect you'll dismiss that as well. And why wouldn't I believe Blum as legitimate? Everything in, for example, 'Rogue State', is cited, referenced and sourced-but of course you know that having read the book yourself.
Maybe you could let me know what in particular you feel is wrong, or where Blum is mistaken, and we can discuss further. I look forward to your reply.

Nicaragua v. United States - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
This goes back way further than bin Laden. I justified nothing-and I made that quite clear! Decades of meddling in the middle east and you expect no consequences? If that's too difficult a concept for you to figure out I don't know what else to suggest. Perhaps you also believe that America is spreading 'Freedom and Democracy' wherever it suits its 'interests'. Remember when America was taken to the ICJ and convicted of numerous breaches of international law against Nicaragua? I expect you'll dismiss that as well. And why wouldn't I believe Blum as legitimate? Everything in, for example, 'Rogue State', is cited, referenced and sourced-but of course you know that having read the book yourself.
Maybe you could let me know what in particular you feel is wrong, or where Blum is mistaken, and we can discuss further. I look forward to your reply.

Nicaragua v. United States - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you bud, but going "I'm not defending terrorist attacks" only to turn around and literally do exactly that is rather amusing.

"Meddling"? Again, Saudi Arabia is the one who requested the US protect them from Saddam. Osama having a tantrum because his gang of mountain men weren't given the job does not equate to "meddling". Al Qaeda is not murdering civilians because of what happened fifty or sixty years ago to leaders they would have happily murdered themselves.

Not only that, but most of Al Qaeda's victims are actually Muslims, who had nothing to do with the events you scream about. So your claim is nonsense on multiple levels.

Clearly the Sandinistas shouldn't have "poked the tiger" then huh :roll:

William Blum is flat out not a legitimate source, just as Grover Furr is not a legitimate source. Just to use one minor example, Blum claims the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade on purpose.....something which there is no evidence of. Blum's work was literally endorsed by Osama Bin Laden......and this is what he had to say about that particular mass murderer.....

"I was glad. I knew it would help the book's sales and I was not bothered by who it was coming from. If he shares with me a deep dislike for the certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy, then I'm not going to spurn any endorsement of the book by him. I think it's good that he shares those views and I'm not turned off by that."

Apparently you can murder as many innocent people as you want and as long as you are anti American William Blum thinks you are just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom