- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 12,895
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The majority of followers of Islam are not off killing everyone.
No, but they may support things like executing apostates and gays. Not exactly what I would define as "peaceful".
And how do they support it?
Do you have proof that over 500 million followers of Islam support executing apostates and gays?
You have no proof, yet claim as if you do.
Your namesake makes me do just that....chuckle at your folly.
I would say the Conservative agenda to turn Americans into raving lunatic haters of unions has been 100% successful. Haters of queers---About 50 % successful. Haters of little brown people-----------Maybe 45%....................
Did the Newtown shooter do his deed in the name of Jesus?
You can keep facepalming yourself more if you want, because you just showed that you do not know what you are talking about.
The radicalization of Saudi Sunnis began in mid 20th century, long before Iraq/Afghanistan, it continued and was only amplified by anti-western rhetoric during the wars, but it began long before that.
Btw the house of Saud isn't the most radical part of Saudi Arabia, nor of the world - it doesn't mean that they are any good either.
Wanna try and come up with another theory?
Fallen.
What do you mean by "innocent people"? Do you mean innocents that we are specifically targeting, like various public bombinb campaigns carried out by actual terrorist organizations, or are you talking about collateral damage, that is born out of the necessities for waging war and is clearly accepted within such documents as the geneva convention?
Depends on what you are exactly talking about. You're posts seem rather vague and based on various faulty assumptions. So they are hard to address in any substantial manner.
Secondly, support for radicalism and fundamentalism (in the context of executing gays and apostates) is rather widespread in the islamic world. And while I don't think that makes islam and muslims inherently bad, there are certain trends within the religion that helps fuel those rather large bad elements. With the big one being the lack of distinction between godly and earthly law
Of course, that is not to say there isn't a reaction to foreign policy going on here, either. But as problematic as it is, the hindu nationalist movement has largely moderated, while the Deobondi school of islam is still fueling the Taliban, ideologically.
So what? If I have a hundred people storm my home to rape my children, and kill 60 before running them off, and they don't have an opportunity to kill anyone, that doesn't make my attempt at defense any less morally right, and their attack and intentions any less morally wrong.
FACEPALM. Saudi Arabia is not radical because of our intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan, and nothing I said can even remotely be considered similar to your very, very poor understanding of my argument.
Iraq is radical because we overthrew their secular government and it was replaced by an Islamic "democracy. Same thing with Iran. And Afghanistan.
Saudi Arabia on the other hand, whose radical Wahhabist government has always been supported and propped up by the United States (like when we sent troops to defend them against Saddam -- Osamas stated reason for 9/11), is a completely separate case. How you managed to confuse them is beyond me, but it makes sense given your poor understanding of how world events are interconnected.
I'm talking about the tens of thousands of innocent people who were killed due to our imperialist foreign policy, like in Iraq for example, a completely voluntary war. Or Libya. Or the presidents terrorist drone policy.
I wonder what else gives fuel to that fire we call radical Islam. Could it be that the west has been ransacking and destroying the Muslim world for the last 50 years, overthrowing governments and propping up dictators as we did in South America, SouthEast Asia, and everywhere else in the world?
It's easy to point the finger at "those people over there" and say we are so much better than them because we don't kill gays. Well, instead we just kill Muslims, by the tens of thousands.
They use identical logic. It's ok to kill Americans because Americans are trying to kill Muslims. You don't see this because you are thoroughly indoctrinated via government propaganda, just like they are brainwashed from radical Muslim propaganda.
Iraq is radical because we overthrew their secular government and it was replaced by an Islamic "democracy." Same thing with Iran. And Afghanistan.
Not really. The Taliban became active during the war with the USSR, at which point we propped them up, funded and supplied them. We gave them everything they needed to defeat the soviets and later assume power.Ignoring the simplistic view of american foreign policy, wouldn't this be ignoring that the Taliban arose in the absence of american interference?
Not really. The Taliban became active during the war with the USSR, at which point we propped them up, funded and supplied them. We gave them everything they needed to defeat the soviets and later assume power.
That's what we do. We pick a group in a middle eastern country, and we fund, train and equip that group, because we believe they would best support our interests in the region. While doing this we're aggrevating the other groups because we're helping their enemies.
The taliban didn't even exist when the soviet union was operating in Afghanistan.
Again, the Taliban didn't start operating until 1994. Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 89
The taliban didn't even exist when the soviet union was operating in Afghanistan.
Again, the Taliban didn't start operating until 1994. Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 89
You are completely and totally wrong. The Taliban formed in 1979 to fight the Soviet invaders.
Here's a few links for you to read up before you reply:
Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of the Taliban
Or if you don't feel like reading, you could also just watch the movie 'Charlie Wilson's War'
Charlie Wilson's War - Trailer(HD) Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts - YouTube
In 1994 a ragtag group of armed young men announced their intent to restore moral order and justice to Afghanistan, punishing robbers, adulterers, and rapistsas they spread their rule.
And just for good measure, here's Reagan meeting with the Taliban.
And just for good measure, here's Reagan meeting with the Taliban.
The taliban and the crisis of Afghanistan pg 4 Robert D Crews and Amin Tarzi.
Pro-tip: Don't believe everything you read on the internet
there are disputes over Reagan and this picture
Ronald Reagan Did Not Say Taliban Had Morals Of Our Founding Fathers
Ronald Reagan Did Not Say Taliban Had Morals Of Our Founding Fathers - YouTube
This chaotic social and political environment gave rise to a vacuum of leadership and gave momentum to to the appearance of a political force that promised to stop the infighting and further destruction of the country. Led by Mullah Muhammad Omar, the initial taliban group emerged in the southern part of Kandahar province in 1994 as a local response to the former resistance and resistance forces implicated in banditry, brutality against local residents ...
First, your quote doesn't even say the Taliban didn't form in 1979, just that they were still a ragtag group of armed men. (Actually it doesn't even mention the Taliban in the quote)
Second, I gave you a picture of Reagan meeting with the Taliban in 1985, I gave you two links, and even a movie made specifically around us supporting the Taliban in the 80's.
Further
same book, page 101, Neamatollah Nojumi
You are incorrect, but now I know why you're making a big deal about a small detail. You wanted to avoid addressing my actual point, which was that over the past 40 years we have been regularing arming, training, and funding any group in the middle east that we think will be beneficial to us, and that this constant political meddling, invasions, and bomb dropping has been a large source of muslim distrust and disdain for Americans.
Not really. The Taliban became active during the war with the USSR, at which point we propped them up, funded and supplied them. We gave them everything they needed to defeat the soviets and later assume power.
didn't you just complain about propped up dictators? You're arguments seem to be all over the place here
where is the imperialism in Iraq or Libya?
Ignoring the simplistic view of american foreign policy, wouldn't this be ignoring that the Taliban arose in the absence of american interference?
Where have we killed people for being muslim?
That isn't identical logic at all. Nothing I asserted claims that it's "ok to kill muslims because they are trying to kill Americans". My argument rested on the fact that disproportionate casualties do not speak to the moral or ethical nature of a conflict.
We bombed the **** out of them, did you forget?
LMFAO! Have you heard of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen, and the resulting power vacuum that was left after Soviet troops withdrew? Is this some kind of joke? You can't be serious right now right?
All over the Middle East. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Nobody would have approved of the invasion of a European country after 9/11. Muslim country like Iraq? No problem!
And what is the "moral" or "ethical" argument you have for killing innocent Muslims? I guess I'm just like 3 steps ahead of you so I will try to slow it down a bit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?