|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
bacasper"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| o Rip Gwa Rhhee"] Anyone ever notice that the mideast street never said anything when Saddam gassed MUSLIM kurds, and nothing was said when Haffaz Assad destroyed the city of Hama killing 20,000 in 2 weeks? Where were the protests when Khomeni's fatwa killed 30,000 Iranians in 1988 alone? Bin Laden killed muslims lots of them in Afghanistan. What religion was the Northern alliance? |
| Quote: |
| Why is any of this your business? |
Shows the enemy has no claim on defending muslims.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Here is what Bin Laden complains about.
| Quote: |
| One of the theses of his most recent book, Imperial Hubris, a New York Times bestseller, was that from bin Laden's perspective, the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 and will continue to be attacked because of a number of grievances against the U.S. and other western countries. These grievances include: U.S. support of Israel and its indifference to the Palestinians, presence of U.S. and western troops on the Arabian Peninsula, occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S. and its allies, the U.S. support of countries that oppress Muslims (such as Russia, India and China), U.S. political pressure on Arab states to keep oil prices low and U.S. support for tyrannical governments. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer |
Why should we trust a Wikipedia article about what Scheuer reports that bin Laden complains about, i.e. fourth-hand information?[/quote]
What Al Qaeda fights for :
| Quote: |
al-Qa'ida (The Base)
Qaedat al-Jihad
Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places
World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
Islamic Salvation Foundation
Usama bin Laden Network
Al-Qa'ida is multi-national, with members from numerous countries and with a worldwide presence. Senior leaders in the organization are also senior leaders in other terrorist organizations, including those designated by the Department of State as foreign terrorist organizations, such as the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian al-Jihad. Al-Qa'ida seeks a global radicalization of existing Islamic groups and the creation of radical Islamic groups where none exist.
Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.
Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.
Description
Established by Usama Bin Ladin in the late 1980s to bring together Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Helped finance, recruit, transport, and train Sunni Islamic extremists for the Afghan resistance. Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems Non-Islamic?and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries particularly Saudi Arabia. Issued statement under banner of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders?in February 1998, saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens civilian or militaryand their allies everywhere. Merged with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) in June 2001. |
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
| Quote: |
| CAIRO (AP) � Al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq." |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-27-zawahri-warning_x.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Anyone ever notice that the mideast street never said anything when Saddam gassed MUSLIM kurds, and nothing was said when Haffaz Assad destroyed the city of Hama killing 20,000 in 2 weeks? Where were the protests when Khomeni's fatwa killed 30,000 Iranians in 1988 alone? Bin Laden killed muslims lots of them in Afghanistan. What religion was the Northern alliance?
| Quote: |
| Why is any of this your business? |
Shows the enemy has no claim on defending muslims. |
OK. NOW will you answer my question?
I repeat, why is any of this your business? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
We've been fighting bin Laden for longer than we fought World War II. Why haven't we won?
Because our political elite do not want to level with the American people about the real reasons why bin Laden hates and opposes us. Our leaders say he and his followers hate us because of who we are, because we have early primaries in Iowa every four years and allow women in the workplace. That's nonsense. I don't think he would have those things in his country. But that's not why he opposes us. I read bin Laden's writings and I take him at his word. He and his followers hate us because of specific aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Bin Laden lays them out for anyone to read. Six elements: our unqualified support for Israel; our presence on the Arabian peninsula, which is land they deem holy; our military presence in other Islamic countries; our support of foreign states that oppress Muslims, especially Russia, China and India; our long-term policy of keeping oil prices artificially low to the benefit of Western consumers but the detriment of the Arab people; and our support for Arab tyrannies who will do that. |
http://www.newsweek.com/id/110937 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Anyone ever notice that the mideast street never said anything when Saddam gassed MUSLIM kurds, and nothing was said when Haffaz Assad destroyed the city of Hama killing 20,000 in 2 weeks? Where were the protests when Khomeni's fatwa killed 30,000 Iranians in 1988 alone? Bin Laden killed muslims lots of them in Afghanistan. What religion was the Northern alliance?
| Quote: |
| Why is any of this your business? |
Shows the enemy has no claim on defending muslims. |
OK. NOW will you answer my question?
I repeat, why is any of this your business? |
But actually if you want to know the real reason for this post. Is that the anti war (only by the US) movement keeps saying that Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9-11 only because of aggressive US policy towards muslims.When the real reason that Al Qaeda fights is cause they want the US out of the mid east so they can conquer it for themselves, but Al Qaeda's demands and designs don't stop there. Al Qaeda will attack the US if the US has trade or diplomatic relations with nations that Al Qaeda doesn't like or if the US votes at the UN the way the US see fits or maybe publishes books they don't approve of. and the more progress Al Qaeda makes in the world the more demands they will make. Al Qaeda/ Jihad international fight will continue to fight until they get the Caliphate or they are destroyed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Maybe one person on this board is a Muslim.
My concept is this: Go tell the Muslims what you think. |
There are muslims who read this board. I've had a couple of Brit muslims spontaneoulsy pm me occasionally to let me know their relief that not everyone here was going insane with Islamophobia. They often read this forum, but tended to stick to posting on the other forums. I'm assuming that they were just the tip of the iceberg. And then there is always fromtheuk. |
'Islamophobia', the latest bit of PC newsspeak which seeks to pigeonhole legitimate criticism of an intolerant ideology as some kind of mental illness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Anyone ever notice that the mideast street never said anything when Saddam gassed MUSLIM kurds, and nothing was said when Haffaz Assad destroyed the city of Hama killing 20,000 in 2 weeks? Where were the protests when Khomeni's fatwa killed 30,000 Iranians in 1988 alone? Bin Laden killed muslims lots of them in Afghanistan. What religion was the Northern alliance?
| Quote: |
| Why is any of this your business? |
Shows the enemy has no claim on defending muslims. |
OK. NOW will you answer my question?
I repeat, why is any of this your business? |
But actually if you want to know the real reason for this post. Is that the anti war (only by the US) movement keeps saying that Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9-11 only because of aggressive US policy towards muslims.When the real reason that Al Qaeda fights is cause they want the US out of the mid east so they can conquer it for themselves, but Al Qaeda's demands and designs don't stop there. Al Qaeda will attack the US if the US has trade or diplomatic relations with nations that Al Qaeda doesn't like or if the US votes at the UN the way the US see fits or maybe publishes books they don't approve of. and the more progress Al Qaeda makes in the world the more demands they will make. Al Qaeda/ Jihad international fight will continue to fight until they get the Caliphate or they are destroyed |
Thanks for your opinion, but regarding the reasons Al-Qaeda hates America that you have referenced here, they all boil down to Ameica's being somehow involved in the Mid-East.
How about we try this: let's get the hell out of there completely and see if the troubles stop. If they continue to attack us, we can always go back in, and during those few years we will have saved a couple of trillion dollars to go back with full force. Deal?
Last edited by bacasper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:54 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="bacasper
Thanks for your opinion, but regarding what you the reasons Al-Qaeda hates America that you have referenced here, they all boil down to Ameica's being somehow involved in the Mid-East.
How about we try this: let's get the hell out of there completely and see if the troubles stop. If they continue to attack us, we can always go back in, and during those few years we will have saved a couple fo trillion dollars to go back with full force. Deal?[/quote]
How about Bali bombings that wasn't the middle east. It doesnt' stop at the mideast.
Anyway ought the US not have trade and diplomatic ties with nations that Al Qaeda doesn't like? Ought the US not vote at the UN in ways that Al Qaeda doesn't approve of.
Why ought the US give in to them?
What ought the US do when Al Qaeda demands that the US not have relations with India |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
The US should cross that bridge when it comes to it.
Now do we have a deal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Maybe one person on this board is a Muslim.
My concept is this: Go tell the Muslims what you think. |
There are muslims who read this board. I've had a couple of Brit muslims spontaneoulsy pm me occasionally to let me know their relief that not everyone here was going insane with Islamophobia. They often read this forum, but tended to stick to posting on the other forums. I'm assuming that they were just the tip of the iceberg. And then there is always fromtheuk. |
'Islamophobia', the latest bit of PC newsspeak which seeks to pigeonhole legitimate criticism of an intolerant ideology as some kind of mental illness. |
Criticism of ideology is one thing. References to 'the muzzies' is another. Also, discussing muslims, as if all muslims were some homogenous group, all bent on the distruction of the West or non-muslims and what-have-you, is a form of bigotry. One you yourself should be very familiar with, eh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Anyone ever notice that the mideast street never said anything when Saddam gassed MUSLIM kurds, and nothing was said when Haffaz Assad destroyed the city of Hama killing 20,000 in 2 weeks? Where were the protests when Khomeni's fatwa killed 30,000 Iranians in 1988 alone? |
What did China say about the gassing of the Kurds? What did Brazil say? Did the US mention in their coverage that they were providing Saddam with chemical agents to gas people?
In the pre-Internet age of 1988, I'm not sure how you're so sure other Arabs didn't condemn such attacks. |
Nowhere Man makes a good point here, Joo. How do you know what the 'Arab Street' were thinking in the 80s? For one thing, as Nowhere Man points out, there was no internet. So how would they have known about it? [And if they did, we weren't able to trawl Arab blogs to see what they had to say about it.] If they had a free press, they probably did hear about it. But, which Arab countries had a free press in the 80s? Otherwise they would only have heard of it through the filter of a controlled press, and would mostly have absorbed the opinion on it that that particular medium intended for them to have.
And then, if the ordinary Arab did indeed know about it, how do you know their opinion on it? Have you read a survey of the ordinary-Arab-in-the-street's opinions regarding the gassing - taken in the 80s or since? Were you hanging around coffee shops in Cairo, Amman or Damascus in the 80s, determining these things? So how do you know how they felt about the gassing?
From my own encounters with Arabs, before and during this 'war in Iraq' I can tell you that the consensus was pretty much that Saddam was a real bastard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is all quite simple really. They simply don't share our values. From day one we have been in their faces about who should be leading them and who should be selling us oil and who should be our allies and who shouldn't. If any other hegemonic power hand their hands in our pot the way we do in theirs you can damn well bet their would be anger on our part. Cause and effect really.
Pull out, get out of their politics. Let them do whatever they hell they want. Sooner or later they will come around and understand that it is better to be our friend than our enemy. They have more than enough people over there willing to die. Let the one who really are our friends grab the weapons and fight for whatever they believe in.
This whole ''al qaeda fights for the caliphate'' is a red herring. Sure they might want it, they might even come out publicly and state that that is the reason they are fighting but guess what, it is never going to happen.
It's stupid conflict. Every once in a while some dude straps a bomb to his chest and our whole civilization is suddenly in danger of falling to crazy muzzie fundamentalists. 
I'm sorry if what I am about to say seems callous, it is not my intent. In the whole scheme of things 9/11 meant nothing. America was no further away or closer to falling into the clutches of evil al-qaedaists the day before or the day after 9/11.
If they day ever arises that some "evil muslim" regime ever takes over an entire country with the express purpose and intent of destroying western civilization well guess what people.... we would slaughter them. We would absolutely kick them back to the stone ages before they could even come close to posing a true and legitimate military threat.
I simply dont understand how our entire civilization was able to function quite well with the USSR on our doorstep possessing thousands and thousands of nuclear missles aimed at every one of our major cities. And now....We are in a fight for our very civilization and way of life because a few freaking dudes in a cave managed one spectacular attack. It hurts my brain just thinking of the stupidity of it all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote]but the anti war movement is every bit as clueless.
[/quote
Sure seems like it some days.
I would wish that those who were anti the war could actually give me a decent argument about why they were in it.
Rather than the normal "we shouldn't have gone into that" piece I always hear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
[
In the pre-Internet age of 1988, I'm not sure how you're so sure other Arabs didn't condemn such attacks. |
| Quote: |
| Nowhere Man makes a good point here, Joo. How do you know what the 'Arab Street' were thinking in the 80s? For one thing, as Nowhere Man points out, there was no internet. So how would they have known about it? [And if they did, we weren't able to trawl Arab blogs to see what they had to say about it.] If they had a free press, they probably did hear about it. But, which Arab countries had a free press in the 80s? Otherwise they would only have heard of it through the filter of a controlled press, and would mostly have absorbed the opinion on it that that particular medium intended for them to have. |
Well I got the words of Robert Fisk.
He is witness number 1.
Here is left wing writer Robert Fisk who I don't agree with but he is correct here.
| Quote: |
| As usual in the Arab world, everyone knew what was happening and no one said a thing. The British and American pilots flying the pointless southern "no-fly" zone � allegedly to protect Iraq's minorities � could clearly see the receding waters of the Marsh. The Arab regimes remained silent. Neither Mubarak nor Arafat nor Assad nor Fahd uttered the mildest word of criticism, any more than they did when the Kurds were gassed. |
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm
Plus in the lead up to the first gulf war
Saddam had a lot of support. He killed more muslims than Israel ever did.
| Quote: |
| And then, if the ordinary Arab did indeed know about it, how do you know their opinion on it? Have you read a survey of the ordinary-Arab-in-the-street's opinions regarding the gassing - taken in the 80s or since? Were you hanging around coffee shops in Cairo, Amman or Damascus in the 80s, determining these things? So how do you know how they felt about the gassing? |
I don't know if ordinary Arabs knew aobut it or not.
But if they didn't know then the mideast is real screwed up because the info is not getting to the average person and so they have a distorted view.
and if they did know about it and there is selective criticism then the mideast is real screwed up
But i will give you another example : Look at how the mideast is siding with the insurgents and turning a blind eye to how they fight.
Here is Thomas Friedman. He will be witness number 2
| Quote: |
Op-Ed Columnist
Swift-Boated by bin Laden
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Doha, Qatar
One thing that has always baffled me about the Bush team�s war effort in Iraq and against Al Qaeda is this: How could an administration that was so good at Swift-boating its political opponents at home be so inept at Swift-boating its geopolitical opponents abroad?
How could the Bush team Swift-boat John Kerry and Max Cleland � authentic Vietnam war heroes, whom the White House turned into surrendering pacifists in the war on terror � but never manage to Swift-boat Osama bin Laden, a genocidal monster, who today is still regarded in many quarters as the vanguard of anti-American �resistance.�
Dive into a conversation about America in the Arab world today, or even in Europe and Africa, and it won�t take 30 seconds before the words �Abu Ghraib� and �Guant�namo Bay� are thrown at you. Yes, both are shameful, but Abu Ghraib was a day at the beach compared to what Al Qaeda and its Sunni jihadist supporters have been doing in Iraq, yet none of their acts have become one-punch global insults like Abu Ghraib and Guant�namo.
Consider what happened on Aug. 14. Four jihadist suicide-bombers blew themselves up in two Iraqi villages, killing more than 500 Kurdish civilians � men, women and babies � who belonged to a tiny pre-Islamic sect known as the Yazidis.
And what was the Bush team�s response to this outrage? Virtual silence. After much Googling, the best I could find was: � �We�re looking at Al Qaeda as the prime suspect,� said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman.� Wow.
Excuse me, but what exactly are we fighting for in Iraq, or in this wider war against Islamist extremism, if the murder of 500 civilians can be shrugged off? Even if we don�t know the exact perpetrators, we know who is inspiring this sort of genocide � Al Qaeda and bin Laden � and we need to say that every day.
Ask yourself this: If Osama bin Laden were running against George Bush for president, how would Karl Rove and Karen Hughes have handled the Yazidi murders? Within an hour, they�d have had a press release out saying: �This genocide of Iraqi civilians was inspired by bin Laden. We accuse bin Laden of the mass murder of 500 women and children. Bin Laden has killed more Iraqis and Muslims than any person alive. Support bin Laden and you support genocide against Muslims.� And they would have repeated that point on every network, every day.
Why should we care? Because bin Laden and his sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri care! Read their statements. They care about their image. They do not want to be labeled as �genocide perpetrators.� They want to be known as the �resistance,� because it affects their street appeal and therefore their ability to recruit and operate.
Sure, some Sunni tribes in Iraq, who are directly threatened by Al Qaeda, have turned against it, but in the wider Arab-Muslim world bin Laden has out-maneuvered Mr. Bush. The man who Swift-boated John Kerry and Max Cleland has been Swift-boated by bin Laden. Mr. Bush is losing a P.R. war to a mass murderer. Yes, it is not easy breaking through the innate, anti-American tilt of the Arab media, but we have barely tried.
I spent Friday hanging around the newsroom of Al Jazeera here in Doha, on the Persian Gulf. I asked Arab reporters here what would be the results of a popularity poll in the region between Mr. Bush and bin Laden. Mr. Bush wouldn�t stand a chance, they said. One big difference between them, though, added one journalist, �is that Bush�s term is about to come to an end and bin Laden is staying in office.� An Egyptian analyst here added that liberals in the Arab world who supported the U.S. democratization effort in Iraq are now dismissed in the Arabic press as �intellectual marines.� U.S. marine is now a term of insult.
Bin Laden has created a situation in which the U.S. occupation in Iraq is viewed as entirely �illegitimate� and therefore any violence there by Sunni jihadists against Americans or Iraqi civilians is considered entirely legitimate �resistance.�
As The Economist magazine just noted, �This is profoundly mistaken.� Yes, military attacks against foreign soldiers who have come uninvited into your country can be called �resistance.� �But the mass murder of Iraqi civilians can make no such dignified claim. Under all established norms and laws of war (and by most accounts under Islamic law, too), the deliberate targeting of civilians for no direct military purposes is just a crime.�
So why don�t we say that? If you can�t win a P.R. war against bin Laden, you have no business fighting a real war anymore in Iraq. |
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/opinion/26friedman.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Here is Nicholas Kristof. Witness number three.
| Quote: |
One reason for the void is that American politicians have learned to muzzle themselves. In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic primaries, Howard Dean said he favored an �even-handed role� for the U.S. � and was blasted for being hostile to Israel. Likewise, Barack Obama has been scolded for daring to say: �Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.� In contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton has safely refused to show an inch of daylight between herself and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
A second reason may be that American politicians just don�t get it. King Abdullah of Jordan spoke to Congress this month and observed: �The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.� Though widely criticized, King Abdullah was exactly right: from Morocco to Yemen to Sudan, the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops more than almost anything else.
You can argue that Arabs pursue a double standard, focusing on repression by Israelis while ignoring greater human rights violations by fellow Arabs. But the suffering in Palestinian territories, while not remotely at the scale of brutality in Sudan or Iraq, is still tragically real.
B�Tselem, a respected Israeli human rights organization, reports that last year Palestinians killed 17 Israeli civilians (including one minor) and six Israeli soldiers. In the same period, B�Tselem said, Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians, triple the number killed in 2005. Of the Palestinians killed in 2006, half were not taking part in hostilities at the time they were killed, and 141 were minors. |
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/opinion/18kristof.html
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:29 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
How about Bali bombings that wasn't the middle east. It doesnt' stop at the mideast.
Anyway ought the US not have trade and diplomatic ties with nations that Al Qaeda doesn't like? Ought the US not vote at the UN in ways that Al Qaeda doesn't approve of.
Why ought the US give in to them?
What ought the US do when Al Qaeda demands that the US not have relations with India |
Joo, you some times say a lot of shit that doesn't help the fight but these are good points.
Good on you for asking difficult questions.
(p.s. what happened to the language monitors) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
It is all quite simple really. They simply don't share our values. From day one we have been in their faces about who should be leading them and who should be selling us oil and who should be our allies and who shouldn't. If any other hegemonic power hand their hands in our pot the way we do in theirs you can damn well bet their would be anger on our part. Cause and effect really.
Pull out, get out of their politics. Let them do whatever they hell they want. Sooner or later they will come around and understand that it is better to be our friend than our enemy. They have more than enough people over there willing to die. Let the one who really are our friends grab the weapons and fight for whatever they believe in.
This whole ''al qaeda fights for the caliphate'' is a red herring. Sure they might want it, they might even come out publicly and state that that is the reason they are fighting but guess what, it is never going to happen.
It's stupid conflict. Every once in a while some dude straps a bomb to his chest and our whole civilization is suddenly in danger of falling to crazy muzzie fundamentalists.
I'm sorry if what I am about to say seems callous, it is not my intent. In the whole scheme of things 9/11 meant nothing. America was no further away or closer to falling into the clutches of evil al-qaedaists the day before or the day after 9/11.
If they day ever arises that some "evil muslim" regime ever takes over an entire country with the express purpose and intent of destroying western civilization well guess what people.... we would slaughter them. We would absolutely kick them back to the stone ages before they could even come close to posing a true and legitimate military threat.
I simply dont understand how our entire civilization was able to function quite well with the USSR on our doorstep possessing thousands and thousands of nuclear missles aimed at every one of our major cities. And now....We are in a fight for our very civilization and way of life because a few freaking dudes in a cave managed one spectacular attack. It hurts my brain just thinking of the stupidity of it all. |
whether Al Qaeda can get the Caliphate or not is not the point.
The point is that they will continue to fight until they get it or until they are destroyed.
Also if the US is under threat from Al Qaeda the US can not function to the extent of its potential.
Al Qaeda is not a threat to destory the US but they are a threat to our way of life.
And anyway why ought the US let them or those who support them get away with what they do?
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
