Why Does Al-Qaeda Hate Us?

[MannyIsGod]

Thread title asks it all.

[Crookshanks]

Because we're a free nation - and the greatest nation in the world. Our citizens have the freedom to make their own decisions and they can even choose to not believe in God or practice any religion. Al-Qaeda is all about control.

And - Al-Qaeda adhers to the most radical and violent parts of the Koran - you know, the parts where it says to kill the infidel and to convert using the sword. So - since the United States is "The Great Satan" they feel it is their duty to destroy us.

[clambake]

^knows nothing about empire building.

[MannyIsGod]

^knows nothing about empire building.

Why do you think Al-Qaeda hates us?

[clambake]

this



Because we're a free nation - and the greatest nation in the world. Our citizens have the freedom to make their own decisions and they can even choose to not believe in God or practice any religion. Al-Qaeda is all about control.

And - Al-Qaeda adhers to the most radical and violent parts of the Koran - you know, the parts where it says to kill the infidel and to convert using the sword. So - since the United States is "The Great Satan" they feel it is their duty to destroy us.

[DarrinS]

This thread went well.

[clambake]

one thing.....we will never respect them as equal in race or culture, regardless if they agree with radical behavior.

they feel they're treated only as occupants of what the west intends to control.

[baseline bum]

Mostly because they're religious nutjobs with extremely conservative interpretations of their holy book.

[spursncowboys]

Clambake you are wrong with your trolling. Al Qaeda does hate our freedoms. They are very similar to Wahabis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi
They want to kill infidels and non-wahabi muslims. While in Iraq, the Wahabi's and AQI were the same thing.
They don't believe in freedom of religion. They don't believe in a seperation of church and state. Just look at how the Taliban ran Afghanistan to see how they would want to run a country.

[clambake]

oh...so that's it, huh?

[Crookshanks]

oh...so that's it, huh?
Yes, that's it. Their hatred is irrational, but it's so deeply rooted in their religion and their culture that there's no way to reach them or change them. All we can do is kill them before they kill us.

[Fpoonsie]

K7aFXRAW7mg

David Cross' take starting at the 1:50 mark...

[Fpoonsie]

After reading some of the responses in this thread, David Cross seems even MORE poignant...and hilarious.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Dumpbake is probably paying $125 per oil change now.

[SnakeBoy]

Yes, that's it. Their hatred is irrational, but it's so deeply rooted in their religion and their culture that there's no way to reach them or change them. All we can do is kill them before they kill us.

Not true. If we tell them we are sorry and extend our hand then they will unclench their fists. It's really easy, we just need to come up with the right speech and there will be peace.

[clambake]

man....some of you people are a fucking joke.

[spursncowboys]

Not true. If we tell them we are sorry and extend our hand then they will unclench their fists. It's really easy, we just need to come up with the right speech and there will be peace. First we have to get rid of all our nuclear weapons and let all of their terrorist brothers out of gitmo and then they will stop killing americans. then america and al qeda can destroy israel together.

[spursncowboys]

man....some of you people are a fucking joke. A liberals idea of foreign policy (Carter and Obama) are the joke.

[clambake]

A liberals idea of foreign policy (Carter and Obama) are the joke.

you don't have the sense to understand that they got exactly what they wanted.

[NoOptionB]

Hard to get laid between Camels and Mountainous terrain.

Enjoy your caves brah!

[spursncowboys]

you don't have the sense to understand that they got exactly what they wanted. You elitist are ridiculous. I highly doubt they wanted us to take over muslim countries and turn them into freemarket trading partners with the West. They wanted war with us but they thought it would be on their terms. Bin Laden, Saddam and other terrorists have been working with each other to kill Americans since mogadishu. They probably thought all Presidents were going to be like Clinton and not do anything everytime americans got killed and attacked.

[SpurNation]

Al-Qaida believes the US is the epicenter for corruption against God.

[sonic21]

because you started supporting Israel.

[smeagol]

Because we're a free nation - and the greatest nation in the world.

:rolleyes

[MannyIsGod]

Clambake you are wrong with your trolling. Al Qaeda does hate our freedoms. They are very similar to Wahabis.

They want to kill infidels and non-wahabi muslims. While in Iraq, the Wahabi's and AQI were the same thing.
They don't believe in freedom of religion. They don't believe in a seperation of church and state. Just look at how the Taliban ran Afghanistan to see how they would want to run a country.

Ok, but why are we the target? There are many countries around the world who allow religious freedom yet did not experience a 9/11. What makes the United States different?

[MannyIsGod]

Al-Qaida believes the US is the epicenter for corruption against God.

Source?

[Crookshanks]

because you started supporting Israel.
That's just an excuse - we've been supporting Israel far longer than Al-Qaeda has been attacking America.

[MannyIsGod]

A liberals idea of foreign policy (Carter and Obama) are the joke.

What about libertarian ideas such as the Cato institute? Are they jokes as well?

[MannyIsGod]

That's just an excuse - we've been supporting Israel far longer than Al-Qaeda has been attacking America.

How does that mean it is not a factor in the decisions possible terrorists make?

[sonic21]

i think the placing of US troops on Muslim holy sites during the Persian Gulf War was important. Bin Laden started threatening America after the stationing of troops in Mecca in 1991.

[mookie2001]

AL Q isnt shit

[spursncowboys]

Ok, but why are we the target? There are many countries around the world who allow religious freedom yet did not experience a 9/11. What makes the United States different?
Every non-muslim country is a target. If you look on that wahabi wiki, it talks about who and why they target.

[mogrovejo]

Because a more or less free society (or, for that matter, one that isn't ruled by the Sharia) isn't acceptable to their world-view.

Al-Qaeda isn't particularly against the US, anyway. They have attacked lots of other countries, including many Muslim and Arab ones, they want to "re-conquer" Spain because of the Al Andalus, etc. The

[spursncowboys]

What about libertarian ideas such as the Cato institute? Are they jokes as well?
Are you saying libertarians are liberals?
Are Objectivists liberal too?

[mogrovejo]

Ok, but why are we the target? There are many countries around the world who allow religious freedom yet did not experience a 9/11. What makes the United States different?

Are you serious? Yeah, they didn't experience exactly a 9/11, but Spain, for example, experienced a 3/11, Tunisia a 4/11, there were the attacks in London, Bali, etc.

[byrontx]

Due to the strong Jewish lobby and Christian-extremists our foreign policy support Zionism. They have their Muslim-extremists, whose idea of a good time was the thirteenth century, that go bonkers over it. There will not be any peace in that part of the world until we stop Zionism and make real efforts to engage and cultivate moderate/modernists in that part of the world (and they do exist). The day we tell Israel that we are not stroking any more checks until the illegal settlements stop is the day that peace will gain a foothold.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you saying libertarians are liberals?
Are Objectivists liberal too?

I said no such thing. I asked your opinion on libertarian foreign policy views.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you serious? Yeah, they didn't experience exactly a 9/11, but Spain, for example, experienced a 3/11, Tunisia a 4/11, there were the attacks in London, Bali, etc.


Fair enough, what do these countries have in common? It isn't simply freedom because I can name you plenty of countries that are free yet are not targets of Islamic Terrorist groups.

[MannyIsGod]

Every non-muslim country is a target. If you look on that wahabi wiki, it talks about who and why they target.

Your equation of wahabis and Al-Qaeda is incorrect. While Al-Qeada members and founders may have shared some beliefs and philosophies they are not one and the same.

[sonic21]

If they don't like something, they'll attack. They threatened to attack France because of a law forbidding Burqa in France.

[MannyIsGod]

If they don't like something, they'll attack. They threatened to attack France because of a law forbidding Burqa in France.

Are you saying they threaten to attack everything they don't like?

[mogrovejo]

Fair enough, what do these countries have in common? It isn't simply freedom because I can name you plenty of countries that are free yet are not targets of Islamic Terrorist groups.

Which ones? I wouldn't put much emphasis on freedom in the traditional sense of the world - I wouldn't call Russia or Saudi Arabia free countries, for example.

[sonic21]

Are you saying they threaten to attack everything they don't like?

when it's about their religion, yes.

[MannyIsGod]

Which ones? I wouldn't put much emphasis on freedom in the traditional sense of the world - I wouldn't call Russia or Saudi Arabia free countries, for example.

Well, neither would I but both of those countries have problems with islamic terrorists (although not necessarily Al-Qaeda.).

Lets use Sweden as the textbook example, however.

[MannyIsGod]

when it's about their religion, yes.

So whenever there is something about a country they don't like because of their religion they threaten to attack or attack, yes?

[Shastafarian]

Due to the strong Jewish lobby and Christian-extremists our foreign policy support Zionism. They have their Muslim-extremists, whose idea of a good time was the thirteenth century, that go bonkers over it. There will not be any peace in that part of the world until we stop Zionism and make real efforts to engage and cultivate moderate/modernists in that part of the world (and they do exist). The day we tell Israel that we are not stroking any more checks until the illegal settlements stop is the day that peace will gain a foothold.

:lol

[Nbadan]

Anytime a Muslim commits a mass slaughter it's immediately blamed on 'Al-Queda'...before 9/11 it was Egyptian Radical Islamists.....Muslims have nut-jobs too, just like Timmy McVea and Terry Nichols and the freak who mailed Antrax..and they were just like the many freedom-loving, over-taxed and under-represented tea-baggers today who want to reign in the Federal govt....should we start thinking of tea-baggers as terrorists?

[mogrovejo]

Well, neither would I but both of those countries have problems with islamic terrorists (although not necessarily Al-Qaeda.).

Lets use Sweden as the textbook example, however.

Yes, they have a problem with islamic terrorists and with Al-Qaeda, that's why I use them to show that the traditional definition of free isn't applicable. Pretty much every country in the world is "free" by their standards.

Sweden is a very small country. We can use other examples: San Marino, Portugal, Angola, Uruguai, Seychelles, Croatia, Burundi, etc. etc. I guess there aren't known threats to those countries (which doesn't mean they aren't a target) but I fail to see what does that prove.

But actually Sweden as been a target in the past: you have the well-known cartoonist story, for example, and other threats, including to Swedish companies like Ericsson, Scania, Volvo, Ikea, and Electrolux.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/500370-swedish-firms-under-threat-from-al-qaeda-
http://www.redorbit.com/news/international/361200/al_qaeda_threatened_sweden_over_afghanistan_troops/index.html

Even though Swedish foreign policy - with their opposition to the Iraq War, the use of public money to fund organizations that promote Jihadism and the willingness to give asile to radical islamists - is very probably the friendliest to Al-Qaeda in the whole Western World.

What's exactly your point?

[spursncowboys]

Your equation of wahabis and Al-Qaeda is incorrect. While Al-Qeada members and founders may have shared some beliefs and philosophies they are not one and the same. That was in my link I sent. I know you read that somewhere but I fought them. I personally can attest to them being on in the same. They were the same thing in Iraq. Both group's basic beliefs are similar enough to be the same. It's like a methodist and a baptist type of difference. All the 911 attackers were wahabis.
Can you please stop with your baiting, or devils advocate. Just make your point.
Why do you think AL Qaeda hates us?

[MannyIsGod]

Anytime a Muslim commits a mass slaughter it's immediately blamed on 'Al-Queda'...before 9/11 it was Egyptian Radical Islamists.....Muslims have nut-jobs too, just like Timmy McVea and Terry Nichols and the freak who mailed Antrax..and they were just like the many freedom-loving, over-taxed and under-represented tea-baggers today who want to reign in the Federal govt....should we start thinking of tea-baggers as terrorists?


Well this is a good point. Al-Qaeda effectively died as an organization when we attacked Afghanistan. What remains are loose connections to old camps and the over use of a term. I always laughed at the term Al-Qaeda in Iraq because it was an obvious way to try to tie 9/11 with the Iraq war. After 9/11 the easiest way for a government to rally support against a group was to call them Al-Qaeda whether or not the term was appropriate.

[spursncowboys]

Anytime a Muslim commits a mass slaughter it's immediately blamed on 'Al-Queda'...before 9/11 it was Egyptian Radical Islamists.....Muslims have nut-jobs too, just like Timmy McVea and Terry Nichols and the freak who mailed Antrax..and they were just like the many freedom-loving, over-taxed and under-represented tea-baggers today who want to reign in the Federal govt....should we start thinking of tea-baggers as terrorists? Obama does. His DOJ will have them on the same list as veterans.

[Nbadan]

Clinton was handling this right...we should have eliminated the Al-Queda remnants covertly, not gone to war - think of the resources we've wasted...now were stuck in Iraq, stuck in Afghanistan...with little hope of getting stable governments in either country that will be strong enough so we can pull combat troops out...Iraq and Afghanistan have become banana Republics...that's what we showed in Central and South America we could do and by God we did it...

[spursncowboys]

Well this is a good point. Al-Qaeda effectively died as an organization when we attacked Afghanistan. What remains are loose connections to old camps and the over use of a term. I always laughed at the term Al-Qaeda in Iraq because it was an obvious way to try to tie 9/11 with the Iraq war. After 9/11 the easiest way for a government to rally support against a group was to call them Al-Qaeda whether or not the term was appropriate.
AQI, the military term for Al Qeada in Iraq isn't funny. They are a deadly formidable ally. They are minuscule in numbers but can hold their own with the shia militas like JAM and SCIRI. Most of AQI came in after the invasion by foreign fighters. However it is ridiculous to think that saddam and OBL weren't working together.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, they have a problem with islamic terrorists and with Al-Qaeda, that's why I use them to show that the traditional definition of free isn't applicable. Pretty much every country in the world is "free" by their standards.

Sweden is a very small country. We can use other examples: San Marino, Portugal, Angola, Uruguai, Seychelles, Croatia, Burundi, etc. etc. I guess there aren't known threats to those countries (which doesn't mean they aren't a target) but I fail to see what does that prove.

But actually Sweden as been a target in the past: you have the well-known cartoonist story, for example, and other threats, including to Swedish companies like Ericsson, Scania, Volvo, Ikea, and Electrolux.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/500370-swedish-firms-under-threat-from-al-qaeda-
http://www.redorbit.com/news/international/361200/al_qaeda_threatened_sweden_over_afghanistan_troops/index.html

Even though Swedish foreign policy - with their opposition to the Iraq War, the use of public money to fund organizations that promote Jihadism and the willingness to give asile to radical islamists - is very probably the friendliest to Al-Qaeda in the whole Western World.

What's exactly your point?

Surely you're not comparing the putting a price on a head of one man because of one mans actions to the terrorist attacks we mentioned above? Those links have nothing to do with Sweden but a man.

In any event what it proves is that the idea that a country is "free" is not the reason a country is attacked. If it was then the United States would not be on the top of the list nor would many of the other countries who have been attacked because there are nations who meet those criteria yet are not being attacked.

What I find really interesting about this, is that Bin Laden himself has said many times over what his motivations are. They're extremely well documented. They are and have never been anywhere as simple as "because the United States is free".

[Nbadan]

I hate to say this but we should just give Afghanistan back to the Taliban and ask them to keep the beheadings to a minimum....Iraq...we are just completely fucked....thanks Dubya....we have no option but to stay until Iraq progresses toward a legitimate democracy...instead of the crony capitalism, banana Republic it is now...

[sonic21]

So whenever there is something about a country they don't like because of their religion they threaten to attack or attack, yes?

Well for now they mainly targetting countries who have troops in Afghanistan (London and Madrid attacks, and threats against Germany and France).

[Nbadan]

What I find really interesting about this, is that Bin Laden himself has said many times over what his motivations are. They're extremely well documented. They are and have never been anywhere as simple as "because the United States is free".

Was Russia too free also? /thread

[sonic21]

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.


http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html

[spursncowboys]

Clinton was handling this right...we should have eliminated the Al-Queda remnants covertly, not gone to war - think of the resources we've wasted...now were stuck in Iraq, stuck in Afghanistan...with little hope of getting stable governments in either country that will be strong enough so we can pull combat troops out...Iraq and Afghanistan have become banana Republics...that's what we showed in Central and South America we could do and by God we did it...:lol Clinton was handling it right... WTC, uss Cole, embassy bombings, not letting the CIA have OBL assasinated, 9-11, mogadishu, letting saddam violate atleast 10 un resolutions, letting NKorea develop nukes, etc. That is great....so if you were president after 9-11, we wouldn't have invaded anybody, saddam would still be in charge of iraq and over 10% of the worlds oil reserves? :lmaoI need another one for that:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

That was in my link I sent. I know you read that somewhere but I fought them. I personally can attest to them being on in the same. They were the same thing in Iraq. Both group's basic beliefs are similar enough to be the same. It's like a methodist and a baptist type of difference. All the 911 attackers were wahabis.
Can you please stop with your baiting, or devils advocate. Just make your point.
Why do you think AL Qaeda hates us?

They are not the same. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. Al-Qeada was an organization. Wahhabi is a radical Islamic philosophy. Not everyone who subscribes to it is or ever was a member of Al-Qeada anymore than not every white supremacist is a member of the KKK.

What do I think Al-Qaeda's motivations are?

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21973.pdf

Or this one is good too - pay special attention to the Al-Qeada worldview section.

http://www.futureofmuslimworld.com/research/detail/al-qaedas-ideology

[MannyIsGod]

Well for now they mainly targetting countries who have troops in Afghanistan (London and Madrid attacks, and threats against Germany and France).

So then the motivation is not simply what they do not like religiously? This is a completely different motivation than what you said before.

[mookie2001]

:lol Clinton was handling it right... WTC, uss Cole, embassy bombings, not letting the CIA have OBL assasinated, 9-11, mogadishu, letting saddam violate atleast 10 un resolutions, letting NKorea develop nukes, etc. That is great....so if you were president after 9-11, we wouldn't have invaded anybody, saddam would still be in charge of iraq and over 10% of the worlds oil reserves? :lmaoI need another one for that:lmao
yeah all that shit was so hilarious!

[Nbadan]

WTC

...happened under Dubya's watch...

[Nbadan]

uss Cole

...was not concluded who was involved until Dubya...

[Nbadan]

embassy bombings

...guess again....Reagan..

[MannyIsGod]

AQI, the military term for Al Qeada in Iraq isn't funny. They are a deadly formidable ally. They are minuscule in numbers but can hold their own with the shia militas like JAM and SCIRI. Most of AQI came in after the invasion by foreign fighters. However it is ridiculous to think that saddam and OBL weren't working together.

They weren't. It is actually ridiculous to think that they were. This is a well documented fact. There is absolutely no support to the thought they worked together and understanding the ideology of Al-Qaeda explains why.

Whether or not the fighters in Iraq are formidable is irrelevant to pointing out the chosen label given to them was a political exercise meant to draw in support for the war.

[Nbadan]

not letting the CIA have OBL assasinated,

Was never on the table.....Afghanistan offered to turn Osama over to Yemen or Saudi Arabia...both refused..

[Nbadan]

letting saddam violate atleast 10 un resolutions

Israel had a covert nuclear weapons program and violated countless numbers of UN resolutions, but we have yet to attack Israel...

[Nbadan]

letting NKorea develop nukes,

errr........Bush41....

[iggypop123]

i've read Said and i still dont know

[spursncowboys]

...happened under Dubya's watch... the one in 92. 9-11 did happen while bush was president. I thought since you were blaming bush for problems now, 9 months out of office, you'd be able to do that with clinton/bush

[mogrovejo]

Surely you're not comparing the putting a price on a head of one man because of one mans actions to the terrorist attacks we mentioned above? Those links have nothing to do with Sweden but a man.

In any event what it proves is that the idea that a country is "free" is not the reason a country is attacked. If it was then the United States would not be on the top of the list nor would many of the other countries who have been attacked because there are nations who meet those criteria yet are not being attacked.

What I find really interesting about this, is that Bin Laden himself has said many times over what his motivations are. They're extremely well documented. They are and have never been anywhere as simple as "because the United States is free".

Have you read them? There were threats to Sweden not related to the cartoon. You're just misinformed.

What are exactly the motivations to attack countries so diverse as Tunisia, Algeria, Spain, US, Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UK, Denmark, Iemen, etc?

[Nbadan]

the one in 92. 9-11 did happen while bush was president. I thought since you were blaming bush for problems now, 9 months out of office, you'd be able to do that with clinton/bush

...well I guess using Dubya logic we could have attacked Mexico for the U.S.S. Cole bombing....

[spursncowboys]

Israel had a covert nuclear weapons program and violated countless numbers of UN resolutions, but we have yet to attack Israel... Yeah isn't that a testiment of how great the un is. How many resolutions do burma, north korea, iran, and syria have. I bet it wouldn't be as many as israel. Also israel is our ally. Furthermore I doubt israel practiced genocide on it's own people.

[spursncowboys]

They weren't. It is actually ridiculous to think that they were. This is a well documented fact. There is absolutely no support to the thought they worked together and understanding the ideology of Al-Qaeda explains why.

Whether or not the fighters in Iraq are formidable is irrelevant to pointing out the chosen label given to them was a political exercise meant to draw in support for the war.




http://www.wnd.com/images/header_exclusive.gif
Bin Laden and the Mogadishu massacre
When U.S. tried to aid Somalians, terrorists conducted guerrilla war
Posted: October 12, 2001
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com


The fall of 1993 was a dark time in the annals of U.S. foreign policy. President Clinton organized an international relief effort to stem starvation amid a raging civil war in Somalia. U.S. military forces spearheaded the United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian mission.
The idea was to bring food to the civilians who needed it, while ensuring it was not grabbed by factions vying for power in the turbulent African nation.
The American people were led to believe that a massacre of 18 U.S. Rangers was the work of one of those militia groups – headed by a Somalian bandit by the name of Muhammad Farrah Aidid.
But, according to a detailed account of the operational planning of that attack in Yossef Bodansky's "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," (http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=263) the massacre was actually the result of a well-planned, well-executed ambush by terrorist forces overseen by Osama bin Laden and supported by the governments of Sudan, Iraq and Iran.
Beginning in 1992, bin Laden orchestrated the movement of 3,000 Yemeni veterans of the Afghanistan war into Somalia. They brought with them heavy weapons and terrorist equipment – including remote-controlled bombs, booby-trapped dolls and Stinger missiles. Bin Laden paid for the mission out of his own pocket to the tune of $3 million.
The idea was "to escalate the armed struggle against the United States," according to Bodansky.
Aidid did indeed play a role. His men were trained in Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Ethiopia and Uganda as part of the master plan.
The Mogadishu operation was so important to Iraq's Saddam Hussein that he sent his son Qusay to supervise the coming attacks on Americans.
In June a conference was held in Khartoum, Sudan, to plan a way to drag Americans in Somalia into a land war, street battles and ambushes "as was done in Vietnam."
Bin Laden did his part – arranging for the movement of trucks, fuel, food, water, weapons, ammunition and explosives into Somalia from Sudan.
On Oct. 3, 1993, U.S.-U.N. forces learned about the presence of two of Aidid's senior foreign policy advisers, Osman Salah and Muhammad Hassan Awali, at the Olympic Hotel. Quickly, a helicopter assault of 100 American troops was under way. The two were captured, as well as 22 other Aidid supporters.
But as the U.S. troops prepared to leave, they were caught in a well-organized ambush by more than a 1,000 guerrillas. Two helicopters were shot down and a third crash-landed at Mogadishu's airport. The U.S. troops established a perimeter around the crash site, but found themselves surrounded and under heavy fire for 11 hours.
In that firefight, 18 American troops were killed, 78 were wounded and one helicopter pilot was captured.
The next day, the guerrillas celebrated a great victory over America – dragging the bodies of the U.S. servicemen through the streets of Mogadishu.
But it was hardly a force of rag-tag Somalian rebels that had trapped the Americans. The intelligence tip received by U.S. forces about the presence of Aidid's men was the setting of a trap by a combination of Islamicist forces directed by bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The ensuing ambush was conducted by hard-core battle-hardened Arab "Afghans" and Iraqis. The main strike force consisted of troops trained by Iran and Iraq. Aidid's forces were introduced later in large numbers to create the appearance of an enraged mob of Somalians taking revenge on U.S. forces.
"In several interviews and statements, Osama bin Laden has said that he considers his experience in Somalia a milestone in his evolution," writes Bodansky. "Somalia was the first time he was involved in a major undertaking at the leadership level, exposed to the complexities of decision making and policy formulation. He established working relations with the intelligence services of Iran and Iraq that would prove useful in his rise to the top. Although he did not actually take part in the fighting in Mogadishu, his contribution to the Islamicist effort and ultimate victory was major and decisive. Bin Laden still defines the fighting in Mogadishu as one of his major triumphs against the United States."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24858

[Nbadan]

Yeah isn't that a testiment of how great the un is. How many resolutions do burma, north korea, iran, and syria have. I bet it wouldn't be as many as israel. Also israel is our ally. Furthermore I doubt israel practiced genocide on it's own people.

..but practicing Genocide on others is OK?

[sonic21]

So then the motivation is not simply what they do not like religiously? This is a completely different motivation than what you said before.

well sure, since 2001 they had to attack countries who have troops in Afghanistan. But there were many other attacks too.

[mookie2001]

...well I guess using Dubya logic we could have attacked Mexico for the U.S.S. Cole bombing....
spursandcowgirls you just got ruined ugly style by the all time leader in political ruinings


i saiddd

[spursncowboys]

...guess again....Reagan.. the embassy bombings in the 90's

[spursncowboys]

They are not the same. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. Al-Qeada was an organization. Wahhabi is a radical Islamic philosophy. Not everyone who subscribes to it is or ever was a member of Al-Qeada anymore than not every white supremacist is a member of the KKK.

What do I think Al-Qaeda's motivations are?

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21973.pdf

Or this one is good too - pay special attention to the Al-Qeada worldview section.

http://www.futureofmuslimworld.com/research/detail/al-qaedas-ideology
Wahabi is what OBL was taught. It is not the same thing i agree and thank you for the textbook referrence. Every AQI believed the same as the wahabi's in that sense they are the same. Therefore it is very beneficial to look at wahabi's when looking into AQ.

[spursncowboys]

...was not concluded who was involved until Dubya...
Yeah right. YOur telling me that the CIA didn't know who did the Cole?

[ChumpDumper]

...guess again....Reagan..Reagan's response to the terrorist attack in Beirut was to cut and run.

[MannyIsGod]

Have you read them? There were threats to Sweden not related to the cartoon. You're just misinformed.

What are exactly the motivations to attack countries so diverse as Tunisia, Algeria, Spain, US, Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UK, Denmark, Iemen, etc?

Thats an incredibly vague threat that entailed no action. Perhaps I am misinformed, how many actual terrorist attacks has Sweden experienced? I think the point I made is completely standing until you show me something a bit more real than 3 paragraphs of a supposed threat. Are you really going to equate that with what other countries have experienced?

Well, the motivations to attack those countries differ on the groups that carried them out. The motivation for the attacks carried out in Indonesia is nothing like the motivations for the attacks carried out in Spain which are also incredibly different from those carried out on the US. The motivations are complex and most of those attacks were not carried about by Al-Qaeda but groups they have co-opted. Now many of those individual groups have nothing but regional problems they seek to resolve (even if their methods are horrendous - that is not the point) and Al-Qaeda may believe helping these groups furthers their greater goal even if the groups actually carrying out the attacks have no beef with any "free" countries.

You want an example? The Uighurs.

[MannyIsGod]

Wahabi is what OBL was taught. It is not the same thing i agree and thank you for the textbook referrence. Every AQI believed the same as the wahabi's in that sense they are the same. Therefore it is very beneficial to look at wahabi's when looking into AQ.

That is simply not true. Did you read the links I provided?

[ChumpDumper]

Wahabi is what OBL was taught. It is not the same thing i agree and thank you for the textbook referrence. Every AQI believed the same as the wahabi's in that sense they are the same. Therefore it is very beneficial to look at wahabi's when looking into AQ.As Manny said, that is quite inaccurate and laughably simplistic.

[boutons_deux]

AQ doesn't give a shit about US freedoms. That's just US idiots with their self-complimenting myth of the US as immaculately, faultlessly innocent.

1. US support for Israel and Israeli imperial Zionism (the Muslims see it) and

2. US military disfiguring/stationed on/desecrating "holy land" Saudi Arabian soil after the Gulf War, seen by Muslims also as US (oil) imperialism.

[mogrovejo]

Thats an incredibly vague threat that entailed no action. Perhaps I am misinformed, how many actual terrorist attacks has Sweden experienced? I think the point I made is completely standing until you show me something a bit more real than 3 paragraphs of a supposed threat. Are you really going to equate that with what other countries have experienced?

Well, the motivations to attack those countries differ on the groups that carried them out. The motivation for the attacks carried out in Indonesia is nothing like the motivations for the attacks carried out in Spain which are also incredibly different from those carried out on the US. The motivations are complex and most of those attacks were not carried about by Al-Qaeda but groups they have co-opted. Now many of those individual groups have nothing but regional problems they seek to resolve (even if their methods are horrendous - that is not the point) and Al-Qaeda may believe helping these groups furthers their greater goal even if the groups actually carrying out the attacks have no beef with any "free" countries.

You want an example? The Uighurs.

You're just goal shifting. First you said that you can name you plenty of countries that are not targets of Islamic Terrorist groups. Then you named Sweden as a textbook example. Once you were proved wrong you're now saying that it was "just a supposed threat"? What's exactly your point? 3 paragraphs, why does that matter? I've picked the first link in english, I bet that in Sweden newspapers the news got more than 3 paragraphs. What proof do you exactly want? Now you're only considering countries that actually suffered attacks? Of course Al-Qaeda can't attack every freaking country in the world or even threaten all of them. I've named a few that, unlike Sweden, haven't been subjected to threads that have been made public. You still didn't explain what the hell does that prove.

Once again, I think the use of the word "free" in that sense is useless. In their view, a "free" country is every one that doesn't follow a purified Islamic belief, as defined by Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb. The US, due to their size and power, is just the most prominent of those countries.

[MannyIsGod]

You're just goal shifting. First you said that you can name you plenty of countries that are not targets of Islamic Terrorist groups. Then you named Sweden as a textbook example. Once you were proved wrong you're now saying that it was "just a supposed threat"? What's exactly your point? 3 paragraphs, why does that matter? I've picked the first link in english, I bet that in Sweden newspapers the news got more than 3 paragraphs. What proof do you exactly want? Now you're only considering countries that actually suffered attacks? Of course Al-Qaeda can't attack every freaking country in the world or even threaten all of them. I've named a few that, unlike Sweden, haven't been subjected to threads that have been made public. You still didn't explain what the hell does that prove.

Once again, I think the use of the word "free" in that sense is useless. In their view, a "free" country is every one that doesn't follow a purified Islamic belief, as defined by Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb. The US, due to their size and power, is just the most prominent of those countries.

It isn't goal shifting at all. Being a target entails an attack is coming. 3 paragraphs on Sweden do not make it a target anymore than some random Afghan saying he's going to blow Sweden to hell. A threat is meaningless unless there is a capability and more importantly a will to carry it out. When it comes to Sweden obviously neither exist.

The fact that Al-Qaeda lacks the resources to attack every country in the world is relevant but not in the way you seem to think. It forces them to make choices and the reasoning FOR those choices is what is being discussed here.

Of course the word free is useless here. I've been saying that over and over. It has nothing to do with freedom at all.

[mogrovejo]

It isn't goal shifting at all. Being a target entails an attack is coming. 3 paragraphs on Sweden do not make it a target anymore than some random Afghan saying he's going to blow Sweden to hell. A threat is meaningless unless there is a capability and more importantly a will to carry it out. When it comes to Sweden obviously neither exist.

The fact that Al-Qaeda lacks the resources to attack every country in the world is relevant but not in the way you seem to think. It forces them to make choices and the reasoning FOR those choices is what is being discussed here.

Of course the word free is useless here. I've been saying that over and over. It has nothing to do with freedom at all.

How exactly do you know that? You also said there were no threats and there were. Apparently the Swedish intelligence services and government think differently than you: they raised their alert level. Maybe you should be lecturing them, as you are absolutely sure there's obviously no threat to Sweden.

It has everything to do with freedom - it's just that they have a much broader definition of freedom (and they obviously claim to be the ones fighting for freedom, very much like every totalitarian movement in history). But every free country is at peril because a free country will always be seen as impure by Al-Qaeda.

[spursncowboys]

That is simply not true. Did you read the links I provided?
Yeah I read some. Mr. Guratna has some good stuff. THis is from his page.
The Afghan Crucible
Osama bin Laden (alias Osama Mohammad al Wahad, or Abu Abdallah, or Al Aaqa) was born in 1957. Attending university in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden became deeply influenced by Wahhabi religious teachings,

[mogrovejo]

Qutb is more important that Wahhab to understand Al-Qaeda motivations. Wahhab was a theologist - a radical reformer but not that much different from Savaranola or John Calvin. You can find many Wahhabi scholars who are vehemently opposed to terrorism or the Jihad, they just want to life accordingly to their religious views. Qutbism is the main ideological framework of Al-Qaeda.

[spursncowboys]

let me get this straight. Spending to ensure every american has healthcare is not ok. but spending to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is ok in your book?

:wow

no wonder the Republican party is in such shambles with this way of thinking. :tu

hundred of thousands of civilians. When in American history did our military do that?This is the full context.

[ChumpDumper]

This is the full context.You can't even post in the right thread.

[spursncowboys]

:lol Don't judge me. I blame the Cowboys lack of tackling.

[spurster]

AQ wants to turn the Middle East and Northern Africa into Islamic states with no US/Western influence. This includes Israel, too.

[exstatic]

AQI, the military term for Al Qeada in Iraq isn't funny. They are a deadly formidable ally. They are minuscule in numbers but can hold their own with the shia militas like JAM and SCIRI. Most of AQI came in after the invasion by foreign fighters. However it is ridiculous to think that saddam and OBL weren't working together.

One of your gods disagrees with you... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm)

[RandomGuy]

Thread title asks it all.

Al Qaeda ideology is the quintessential conspiracy theory.

The US is "out to get" muslims. They are altogether not much different than the culture warriors that shoot abortion doctors in the US.

The US is out to kill/convert muslims and is simply evil. As an actor for the devil, we are all unwitting pawns in the game of Satan, plotting to spread our evil secularism.

When we prop up rather brutal regimes in the Arab world, that kinda reinforces the perception that we are evil.

[RandomGuy]

However it is ridiculous to think that saddam and OBL weren't working together.

They weren't to any meaningful degree. There were some very low level meetings at some point, but no one has ever presented any evidence of any working relationship.

Secular totalitarian dictators tend not to allow armed religious fanatics much reign, and religious fanatics tend to see secular totalitarian dictators as not much better than the US.

If it is so ridiculous to think that Saddam and OBL weren't working together, I imagine you can quite easily provide proof of this well-established working relationship.

Bullshit has been called. Either you can provide a reasonable level of proof, or you are talking out your ass and parroting something you heard someone tell you without bothering to factcheck.

[RandomGuy]

AQ doesn't give a shit about US freedoms. That's just US idiots with their self-complimenting myth of the US as immaculately, faultlessly innocent.

1. US support for Israel and Israeli imperial Zionism (the Muslims see it) and

2. US military disfiguring/stationed on/desecrating "holy land" Saudi Arabian soil after the Gulf War, seen by Muslims also as US (oil) imperialism.

Ding Ding Ding... here is your stuffed bear.

[spursncowboys]

They weren't to any meaningful degree. There were some very low level meetings at some point, but no one has ever presented any evidence of any working relationship.

Secular totalitarian dictators tend not to allow armed religious fanatics much reign, and religious fanatics tend to see secular totalitarian dictators as not much better than the US. Yeah your right. OBL never worked with druglords, or Iran, or Pakistan. Saddam never worked with the Palestinian suicide bombers. Because ruthless dictators and psychotic extremists are so easy to categorize understand. It's because of how logical they think.


If it is so ridiculous to think that Saddam and OBL weren't working together, I imagine you can quite easily provide proof of this well-established working relationship.

Bullshit has been called. Either you can provide a reasonable level of proof, or you are talking out your ass and parroting something you heard someone tell you without bothering to factcheck. 1979 Saddam said any terrorist could train in Iraq as long as they targeted US and/or Israel. Saddam was giving money to the families of suicide bombers. Saddam and OBL worked together in the Mogadishu attack on American peace keepers stationed there. But Clinton did the ethical thing and had the CIA not assassinate him. Good call!!

[ChumpDumper]

Saddam and OBL worked together in the Mogadishu attack on American peace keepers stationed there.Yeah, you're going to have to give us a link to that one.

[Stringer_Bell]

Saddam and OBL worked together in the Mogadishu attack on American peace keepers stationed there. But Clinton did the ethical thing and had the CIA not assassinate him. Good call!!

Can you please provide a link, I'm very curious...curious to know why we'd assassinate our own operative. :lol

I always thought the purpose of AQ was to restore the Caliphate and spread it all over the world, as it is Western influence that is destroying the fabric of Muslim society. It's sort of how we fight for "freedom," AQ fights for "religious rule."

Also, they are probably jealous our women shave their pubic hair into sexy designs while their women let that shit get all forested. That is all.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah your right. OBL never worked with druglords, or Iran, or Pakistan. Saddam never worked with the Palestinian suicide bombers. Because ruthless dictators and psychotic extremists are so easy to categorize understand. It's because of how logical they think.

All I see here is simple regurgitation here of Fox "News" talking points, and no attempt to actually prove the relationship as asked.

Palestinian suicide bombers were not Al Qaeda. Here are your ticket for the Fail Boat, if you hurry you can catch it.

Here is a good quiz question for you... are the mullahs in Iran Wahabbists as well?

[RandomGuy]

. Saddam and OBL worked together in the Mogadishu attack on American peace keepers stationed there.

Link?

[RandomGuy]

I have no doubt that Iraq and AQ had some sympathies for each others' causes, but neither really trusted the other farther than they could throw them.

They only source I could google on this was some unsubstantiated/unsourced blog posts in conservative websites. Hardly a convincing level of proof.

Frankly this begins to smell like the conservative version of a 9-11 conspiracy theory.

[MannyIsGod]

I have no doubt that Iraq and AQ had some sympathies for each others' causes, but neither really trusted the other farther than they could throw them.

They only source I could google on this was some unsubstantiated/unsourced blog posts in conservative websites. Hardly a convincing level of proof.

I fully doubt they had sympathies for each causes considering OBL trained a group that was working against Iraq inside of Iraq. They only stopped helping them at the request of Sudan although they still funded the group against the Kurds in the north. OBL also spoke out against Sadaam many times.

[RandomGuy]

I fully doubt they had sympathies for each causes considering OBL trained a group that was working against Iraq inside of Iraq. They only stopped helping them at the request of Sudan although they still funded the group against the Kurds in the north. OBL also spoke out against Sadaam many times.

I meant more along the lines of both Saddam and AQ being mostly "Anti-American".

They were vaguely forced into a "enemy of my enemy" relationship, but the AQ ideology dispises dictators like Saddam, and Saddam dispised them.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

As long as Israel is safe and sound, it's a struggle worth struggling for.

[whottt]

They hate us because they are homophobic, misogynic and zenophobic...

IOW, they hate us because of our liberalism...read some of Usama and clan's speeches sometimes, they talk about homosexuality, having no gods and no morals.


That's why it's tremendously ironic the way the war split went in terms of who supported it and who didn't...if there is a segment of American population they want to behead and slaughter, it's our fags, sluts and atheists..I mean shit, look at what happens to those people in that part of the world. Want a clip to the 16 year old queers being hung in Iran?


Probably aren't too crazy about our decadent hollywood celbrities either...you know, the guys that understand their side of things.


Yet those are the Americans trying to suck them off and be nice to them, which kind of proves their point about why they don't want a segment of the population like that among their numbers....even more to the point when it was pretty much the conservatives attempting to fight for liberalism in that region of the world all the while having to deal with American liberals biting their ankles., and screaming we're the problem, we're the problem, every step of the battle....

I think the liberal battle cry was, death to the Republicans, it's not our problem, let's gtfo, they're savages...etc.



That's why they hate us....because they don't want their society being like that.


IOW they really do hate our freedom, Much like most oppressive regimes do.



As for the leaders' motivation, it's no so much hate as it is power. The leaders look and see them getting their asses kicked by Israel and basically being reduced to third 3rd world inspite of being in the most minerally wealthy region of the entire planet and those with a knowledge of history know that during the time of the Ottoman Empire it was the peak of Muslim civilization and they want to return to that. The return of the Ottoman Empire and a powerful Muslim Superpower able to stand up to the Western and Eastern world powers...and get the West the fuck out of their region of the world.

[Phenomanul]

...well I guess using Dubya logic we could have attacked Mexico for....

Like James K. Polk? Been there done that....

[whottt]

It's not really that hard to figure out why they hate us...

[boutons_deux]

"homophobic, misogynic and zenophobic"

red-staters and Repugs??

[Shastafarian]

As long as Israel is safe and sound, it's a struggle worth struggling for.

It's just a good thing all those islamic countries are willing to take in Palestinian refugees...

[spursncowboys]

It's just a good thing all those islamic countries are willing to take in Palestinian refugees... Are you being facetious?

[George Gervin's Afro]

They hate us because they are homophobic, misogynic and zenophobic...

IOW, they hate us because of our liberalism...read some of Usama and clan's speeches sometimes, they talk about homosexuality, having no gods and no morals.


That's why it's tremendously ironic the way the war split went in terms of who supported it and who didn't...if there is a segment of American population they want to behead and slaughter, it's our fags, sluts and atheists..I mean shit, look at what happens to those people in that part of the world. Want a clip to the 16 year old queers being hung in Iran?


Probably aren't too crazy about our decadent hollywood celbrities either...you know, the guys that understand their side of things.


Yet those are the Americans trying to suck them off and be nice to them, which kind of proves their point about why they don't want a segment of the population like that among their numbers....even more to the point when it was pretty much the conservatives attempting to fight for liberalism in that region of the world all the while having to deal with American liberals biting their ankles., and screaming we're the problem, we're the problem, every step of the battle....

I think the liberal battle cry was, death to the Republicans, it's not our problem, let's gtfo, they're savages...etc.



That's why they hate us....because they don't want their society being like that.


IOW they really do hate our freedom, Much like most oppressive regimes do.



As for the leaders' motivation, it's no so much hate as it is power. The leaders look and see them getting their asses kicked by Israel and basically being reduced to third 3rd world inspite of being in the most minerally wealthy region of the entire planet and those with a knowledge of history know that during the time of the Ottoman Empire it was the peak of Muslim civilization and they want to return to that. The return of the Ottoman Empire and a powerful Muslim Superpower able to stand up to the Western and Eastern world powers...and get the West the fuck out of their region of the world.

they want more religion in govt and hate gay people...where have I heard that platform before?

[DarrinS]

Why does Al Qaeda hate us?

I think the question should be broader, to include all Islamic jihadists.

They're fucking crazy. We're talking about the kind of people that want to kill over a cartoon of Mohammed. It's really not too hard to be on their shit list. And we support Israel and share their Judeo-Christian values.

[spursncowboys]

Can you please provide a link, I'm very curious...curious to know why we'd assassinate our own operative. :lol

I always thought the purpose of AQ was to restore the Caliphate and spread it all over the world, as it is Western influence that is destroying the fabric of Muslim society. It's sort of how we fight for "freedom," AQ fights for "religious rule."

Also, they are probably jealous our women shave their pubic hair into sexy designs while their women let that shit get all forested. That is all.
We weren't going to assassinate our own operative. The Northern Resistance in Afghanistan was going to assassinate OBL. The CIA, thru Clinton, told them not to.
Religious rule? :lmao So AQ killing, suppressing, raping in the name of their religion is the same as America fighting to give people to live in a free democratic society? How are they similiar?

[jack sommerset]

"homophobic, misogynic and zenophobic"

red-staters and Repugs??

Al-Qaeda equals Republicans. People protesting taxes equal mobsters. You disagree with healthcare equals racist. No wonder Obama approval ratings keep going down. The media was wrong about Obama being smart. He keeps people like Boutons on his payroll.:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

Why does Al Qaeda hate us?

I think the question should be broader, to include all Islamic jihadists.

They're fucking crazy. We're talking about the kind of people that want to kill over a cartoon of Mohammed. It's really not too hard to be on their shit list. And we support Israel and share their Judeo-Christian values.

We need to hook them up with XBoxes. I know if I was living in a desert, with no entertainment and no fast food, I'd probably start to get the urge to kill someone. :lol

[Winehole23]

So AQ killing, suppressing, raping in the name of their religion is the same as America fighting to give people to live in a free democratic society? How are they similiar?It's similar. Both amount to imposing one's beliefs on others, violently and unbidden. OBL wrecked two skyscapers. We wrecked an entire country that had nothing to do with it.

Which is worse?

[spursncowboys]

It's similar. Both amount to imposing one's beliefs on others, violently and unbidden. OBL wrecked two skyscapers. We wrecked an entire country that had nothing to do with it.

Which is worse?
So Winehouse. That is far reaching, and you even know that. We wrecked a country? Iraq? Afghanistan? Do you really think that either of those countries were better off before us? Both countries were ruled by a few(Taliban) or one's(Saddam's) beliefs. Saddam killed over a million of his countrymen. I don't know the numbers of Taliban and AQ killing Afghan's but I am almost certain to be higher than American's. These two also don't police their own. America does. No other country, besides England, has held such a high standard for it's own military towards the enemie's civilians. America set up an elected group of their peers. We let their own countrymen create their own laws, based on their culture. Beside the idea of democracy, we did not institute anything from our culture. ""Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return." " -Colin Powell
You are simplifying and forgetting so much more of OBL's mayhem.
Finally, look at our track record. We instilled our democracy on S. Korea, Japan, Germany, the Phillipines, etc. and are they not better off?
Between 15-30000 French civilians were killed in the Normandy campaign in WW2. We 'wrecked' that country trying to free it and is it not better off?

[LnGrrrR]

Spurs,

It's not a matter of 'better off' or not.

Do you think that if Europeans took over our country, in order to give us free healthcare, we'd appreciate it?

Better is a relative term. Many of the occupants of the nation think their nation is better than ours, after all.

I agree that the United States has one of the better forms of government out there, but (I believe) Winehole is also questioning our moral authority to go into other countries and forcibly change their government for the better.

Look at it this way: Is it moral to take money from a millionaire to support poorer people? Some people will argue it is; others argue it isn't, and there are legitimate viewpoints on both sides.

[hope4dopes]

Spurs,

It's not a matter of 'better off' or not.

Do you think that if Europeans took over our country, in order to give us free healthcare, we'd appreciate it?

Better is a relative term. Many of the occupants of the nation think their nation is better than ours, after all.

I agree that the United States has one of the better forms of government out there, but (I believe) Winehole is also questioning our moral authority to go into other countries and forcibly change their government for the better.

Look at it this way: Is it moral to take money from a millionaire to support poorer people? Some people will argue it is; others argue it isn't, and there are legitimate viewpoints on both sides. Yeah I see yours and whinehouse's point a represenative democracy and a ecclisastic tyrany are moraly relative.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah I see yours and whinehouse's point a represenative democracy and a ecclisastic tyrany are moraly relative.

Actually, you obviously missed the whole point.

Tell me Micca, what makes it MORAL to invade another country and change their government through force?

Are you a utilitarianist?

[spursncowboys]

Spurs,

It's not a matter of 'better off' or not.

Do you think that if Europeans took over our country, in order to give us free healthcare, we'd appreciate it? Every waterway in the world is able to be used, for free, because the US protects it. We do this, because our country believes in freedoms. Also we were attacked by these two countries- Iraq and Afghanistan. Now if We attacked England and they went to war and invaded and then won, then they could make us have free healthcare. That is what is so great about America. We can invade, take and conquer any country in the world and we don't. If we do and win, the outcome has always been a more beneficial, healthier, and more successful society.


Better is a relative term. Many of the occupants of the nation think their nation is better than ours, after all.

I agree that the United States has one of the better forms of government out there, but (I believe) Winehole is also questioning our moral authority to go into other countries and forcibly change their government for the better. We were attacked by these two countries. It would be immoral for our govt. to not protect us.


Look at it this way: Is it moral to take money from a millionaire to support poorer people? Some people will argue it is; others argue it isn't, and there are legitimate viewpoints on both sides. I think it is immoral to take from those who earn and give to those who want. Also it is immoral because "B and C voting that A has to support D" -M. Friedman.
I think the difference with govt and private citizens and govt and a foreign govt. is our govt. should be keeping us safe.

[hope4dopes]

Actually, you obviously missed the whole point.

Tell me Micca, what makes it MORAL to invade another country and change their government through force?

Are you a utilitarianist?I guess you make it right, you choose what's right and wrong and then you see how it works for you, the point is moral relativisim is a canard.

[hope4dopes]

Actually, you obviously missed the whole point.

Tell me Micca, what makes it MORAL to invade another country and change their government through force?

Are you a utilitarianist? Ever read the "Sea Wolf" by jack london?

[Shastafarian]

Every waterway in the world is able to be used, for free, because the US protects it.What?

We do this, because our country believes in freedoms.Even if we did "protect every waterway in the world" that would not be the reason.

Also we were attacked by these two countries- Iraq and Afghanistan. No we weren't.

Now if We attacked England and they went to war and invaded and then won, then they could make us have free healthcare.Your analogy fails because you assume we were attacked by either country.

That is what is so great about America. We can invade, take and conquer any country in the world and we don't.That's not why America is great.

If we do and win, the outcome has always been a more beneficial, healthier, and more successful society.Ends justifying the means.

We were attacked by these two countries. Nope.

It would be immoral for our govt. to not protect us. They're protecting us from two countries that didn't attack us.

You have a seriously warped view of the world.

[MannyIsGod]

Wow, just wow.

[spursncowboys]

Wow, just wow.No devil's advocate, socrates?

[MannyIsGod]

No devil's advocate, socrates?


There is no point discussing anything with someone who's world view is grounded in a place so far from reality. The nationalism which runs in your veins is amazing.

[hope4dopes]

They hate us because we work,because people choose us. They hate us for the same reason the Catholic Church hated Martin Luther. They hate us because if the the Islamic world didn't use terror on it's own people it would in short order end up as an obscure and silly cult.If people in the Islamic world were free of terror to make their own choices, to explore freely there own spiritual truths without coercen, without punishment, they are afraid Islam would dry up and blow away.

[spursncowboys]

There is no point discussing anything with someone who's world view is grounded in a place so far from reality. The nationalism which runs in your veins is amazing.
How am I a nationalist? What facts base the idea that the views i have are away from reality? Can you name things that are away from reality with which you have the "real" answer? Do you have the enlightened approach to help me with my Neanderthal ideas of government?

[George Gervin's Afro]

How am I a nationalist? What facts base the idea that the views i have are away from reality? Can you name things that are away from reality with which you have the "real" answer? Do you have the enlightened approach to help me with my Neanderthal ideas of government?

i'm still trying to comprehend that afghanistan and iraq attacked us..

[Winehole23]

So Winehouse. That is far reaching, and you even know that. We wrecked a country? Iraq? Yes.


Afghanistan?Was a basket case to begin with.


Do you really think that either of those countries were better off before us?Beside the point. Neither was much of a threat to us, and Iraq had zip to do with 9/11.

What is business is it of ours to impose our form of government on others, and to try to remake their societies after our own image??


Saddam killed over a million of his countrymen. Not sure what that has to do with anything.


I don't know the numbers of Taliban and AQ killing Afghan's but I am almost certain to be higher than American's.For all I know you're right. What makes you so certain and what would that prove?



These two also don't police their own. America does. No other country, besides England, has held such a high standard for it's own military towards the enemie's civilians. America set up an elected group of their peers. We let their own countrymen create their own laws, based on their culture. Beside the idea of democracy, we did not institute anything from our culture. ""Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return." " -Colin PowellWe're better than them. Granted.

Do you think this gives us the right to topple their governments and wreck their shit, just because we think they should be more like us?


You are simplifying and forgetting so much more of OBL's mayhem. I focused on one thing. Forgive me.


Finally, look at our track record. We instilled our democracy on S. Korea, Japan, Germany, the Phillipines, etc. and are they not better off?That's for them to say, really. I'll bet there are some mixed feelings, particularly in the Philippines, and for sure every August in Japan.


Between 15-30000 French civilians were killed in the Normandy campaign in WW2. We 'wrecked' that country trying to free it and is it not better off?Sure. Does that mean it's the right thing to do every time?

Also, does the project of converting the globe to our form of government have any rational end? Is it doable? Is it affordable? Is it good for the USA?

[NFGIII]

http://www.slate.com/id/2171752/pagenum/2

I ran into this several years ago. It's a book review on the Al Queda Reader by Reza Aslan. Though the review didn't state exactly why they hate us it did seem to believe that there really wasn't a coherent philisophy as much as ramblings of compliants and greivances against the West and particularly the US. And the argument about US/Western freedoms being the reason for their hatred seemed to hold less sway as the years passed.

[LnGrrrR]

Every waterway in the world is able to be used, for free, because the US protects it. We do this, because our country believes in freedoms. Also we were attacked by these two countries- Iraq and Afghanistan. Now if We attacked England and they went to war and invaded and then won, then they could make us have free healthcare. That is what is so great about America. We can invade, take and conquer any country in the world and we don't. If we do and win, the outcome has always been a more beneficial, healthier, and more successful society. We were attacked by these two countries. It would be immoral for our govt. to not protect us.

Uhm... I'm pretty sure there are some pirates who would counter you on this point. And I don't see anything saying that the US has to support the world's waterways.

When were we attacked by Iraq?

Additionally, being attacked by a terrorist from another country is not the same as being attacked by that country, officially. I would think this is obvious though. For instance, if an American bombed a building in another country, would that mean that the US had suddenly gone to war with that country? Of course not.

I also think your moral relativism is interesting. If we don't invade, then we're a good country. But even if we DO invade, places always turn out better, so that's ok too.


I think it is immoral to take from those who earn and give to those who want. Also it is immoral because "B and C voting that A has to support D" -M. Friedman.
I think the difference with govt and private citizens and govt and a foreign govt. is our govt. should be keeping us safe.

Actually, our government is there to protect our laws, not our safety. Big difference.

Second, why do you think it's immoral to take money from someone in order to make the lives of poor people better, but you think it's moral to invade a country to make the lives of poor people better?

[spursncowboys]

What is business is it of ours to impose our form of government on others, and to try to remake their societies after our own image?? It is not except if we have to go to war with a country. Precedent has it that we nation-build. That is Democrats and Republicans. People like you say that it is immoral to just go to war with a nation and not help them rebuild. I believe it is more beneficial to us to help but should be doctrine.


Do you think this gives us the right to topple their governments and wreck their shit, just because we think they should be more like us? I disagree we wrecked their shit. We should go to war with people who attack us. Iraq tried to assassinate a president. He shot down americans. He encouraged suicide bombers to train and kill americans and israelis. The entire world's intel community thought he had wmd.'s



That's for them to say, really. I'll bet there are some mixed feelings, particularly in the Philippines, and for sure every August in Japan. You are assuming. I don't agree.


Sure. Does that mean it's the right thing to do every time? No but should it never be used?


Also, does the project of converting the globe to our form of government have any rational end? Is it doable? Is it affordable? Is it good for the USA? No

[LnGrrrR]

It is not except if we have to go to war with a country. Precedent has it that we nation-build. That is Democrats and Republicans. People like you say that it is immoral to just go to war with a nation and not help them rebuild. I believe it is more beneficial to us to help but should be doctrine.

Actually, that precedent of nation-building is relatively recent, if you're including the entire history of the United States.


I disagree we wrecked their shit.

So you're saying we haven't done any damage there?


We should go to war with people who attack us. Iraq tried to assassinate a president.

Hmm don't quite remember that... documentation?


He shot down americans. He encouraged suicide bombers to train and kill americans and israelis. The entire world's intel community thought he had wmd.'s

Not the entire world's intel community. There were many skeptics before the war. And encouraging bombers isn't the same as doing it himself.

Even if he DID do all this, that doesn't necessarily mean we should go to war without weighing the risk vs benefit ratio.


You are assuming. I don't agree.

Are you Japanese? Have you lived over there? Have you studied Japanese culture? If not, I don't see how your assumption is any more valid than WH23's.


No but should it never be used?

He never said it shouldn't be used. He said it shouldn't always be used. There's a difference.


No

There were actually multiple questions... are you responding No to all of them?

[Winehole23]

It is not except if we have to go to war with a country. Precedent has it that we nation-build. That is Democrats and Republicans.I agree that nation-building has become customary for the USA, but I guess we'll just have to disagree about the effect it has on others and ourselves.


People like you say that it is immoral to just go to war with a nation and not help them rebuild.I didn't say that.


I disagree we wrecked their shit.It's checkable. Just look at the power generation and potable water situation in Iraq. Cholera thrives in technologically backward countries, and that's what Iraq is now.

Before the war, it wasn't.

We wrecked it.


We should go to war with people who attack us.To a point, yes. You can make a mountain out of a molehill.


Iraq tried to assassinate a president. President Clinton addressed that. He wrecked some shit. I approved.


He shot down americans.In the Gulf War, you mean?


He encouraged suicide bombers to train and kill americans and israelis. We encourage Marxists and Baluchi separatists to kill Iranians. Is that so different?


The entire world's intel community thought he had wmd.'sBullshit. The incompetence of the whole world's intelligence services has been greatly exaggerated.

The unanimity and the certainty you cite are grossly overstated, and the relevant caveats and footnotes in our own NIE's show the ambiguity about WMD's that existed then.

The UN inspectors, who had the best access and information, were ignored. They told us beforehand there were no WMD's in Iraq and they were right.


No but should it never be used?I never said never, but you seem to doubt we could ever be wrong.

[EVAY]

i think the placing of US troops on Muslim holy sites during the Persian Gulf War was important. Bin Laden started threatening America after the stationing of troops in Mecca in 1991.

This is actually the hisatorical reason for Bin Laden's hatred. It is also why he (Bin Laden) hates the Saudi royal family...because they asked us to stay in their country as protection agains Iraqi aggression. That meant that we were in their 'holy' places.

[MannyIsGod]

This thread went well.


:lmao @ this post. I think this thread is going extremely well to be honest. Way to prematurely blow your load.

[DarrinS]

:lmao @ this post. I think this thread is going extremely well to be honest. Way to prematurely blow your load.


Well, it did take on some life after sitting there for hours like a rotting turd.

[spursncowboys]

I don't know about anywhere else but in Iraq, they were taught that Hitler was good and the Axis. Maybe because of the Ottomans.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know about anywhere else but in Iraq, they were taught that Hitler was good and the Axis. Maybe because of the Ottomans.

Besides asking for documentation, I'll point out that this is a non-sequitur.

[Winehole23]

I don't know about anywhere else but in Iraq, they were taught that Hitler was good and the Axis. Maybe because of the Ottomans.And here, we're not only taught that our own shit doesn't stink, but to wear it as perfume.

[spursncowboys]

Actually, that precedent of nation-building is relatively recent, if you're including the entire history of the United States.



So you're saying we haven't done any damage there?



Hmm don't quite remember that... documentation?




Not the entire world's intel community. There were many skeptics before the war. And encouraging bombers isn't the same as doing it himself. Not the entire. America, UK, Russia, Germany, Israel, among others.


Even if he DID do all this, that doesn't necessarily mean we should go to war without weighing the risk vs benefit ratio. agree 100%




Are you Japanese? Have you lived over there? Have you studied Japanese culture? If not, I don't see how your assumption is any more valid than WH23's. its doesn't




He never said it shouldn't be used. He said it shouldn't always be used. There's a difference. I never said it should always be used.



There were actually multiple questions... are you responding No to all of them? No we cannot make all countries into what we want. We don't have the capacity.
Here are some of my question is should US intervene anytime? Should we intervene when it is beneficial to america's interest, or morally just? Are there certain governments that america should not work with until they become a better government? Should an enemy of ours be able to develop nuclear weapons?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't know about anywhere else but in Iraq, they were taught that Hitler was good and the Axis. Maybe because of the Ottomans.

soooooo..that justifies war?

[spursncowboys]

Besides asking for documentation, I'll point out that this is a non-sequitur. Im sorry, While I was in Iraq, I talked to Iraqis who would tell me about how america lost in ww2 to the great hitler. I am sorry I portrayed myself as if I went door to door to every iraqi and asked them about hitler.

[Winehole23]

Here are some of my question is should US intervene anytime? Should we intervene when it is beneficial to america's interest...depends on how beneficial, what interests are at stake and whether they can be secured short of war.


...or morally just? No. Let others ruin their own countries or fight wars. And then go in and do business with them, if possible. It's working great for China. It worked great for us for a long time.

Even in WWI and WWII, we stayed out as long as possible, let Europe wreck itself and cleaned up afterwards.


Are there certain governments that america should not work with until they become a better government? Not our business, IMO. It's bad form to meddle in the internal affairs of others, and it's seldom very persuasive. Doing business with them and respecting their sovereignty, OTOH, tends to increase amity and US influence. Telling them how they should run their country doesn't.


Should an enemy of ours be able to develop nuclear weapons?Working to prevent this makes good sense. Just as working toward it makes good sense to them.

[LnGrrrR]

No we cannot make all countries into what we want. We don't have the capacity.

Fair enough.


Here are some of my question is should US intervene anytime? Should we intervene when it is beneficial to america's interest, or morally just?

A good question!I don't think there's any hard and fast rule to when we should intervene. But I think that, in general, these rules should be considered:

1) It must be supported by a majority of Americans
2) It must be supported by a majority of citizens in the country we're helping
3) There must be a strong case to be made why America should intervene

I believe 1 was applicable to Iraq, and 3 could be argued. Not sure about 2.


Are there certain governments that america should not work with until they become a better government?

I'm against the idea that talking to a regime gives them legitimacy. If a person is in power, by hook or by crook, that's all the legitimacy they need anyways. I'm all for talking to whoever we can to determine what America's interests are. I realize I'm probably in the minority.


Should an enemy of ours be able to develop nuclear weapons?

Philosophically speaking, I don't see how America, the only nation to use nukes, is justified in telling other people whether or not they can pursue nuclear weapons.

Realistically, there are certainly valid reasons why we don't want countries producing nuclear weapons, especially if those countries have poor security. I'm not quite sure how to align those two.

[Wild Cobra]

I have heard several interviews with Brigitte Gabriel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgette_Gabriel). She has a couple books out. If anyone is serious to lean about this topic maybe her books should be read. Since I haven't read them, I cannot fully comment, but the several interview I have heard her on, she makes sense.

Her website:

American Congress for Truth (http://americancongressfortruth.com/)

I don't know if that audio is one I heard before or not, but I linked it because I found it in a short search. From YouTube:

-8fa9yKQeTY

Audio: Interview with Brigitte Gabriel (http://www.takeoverworld.info/mp3/Brigitte_Gabriel_on_Tamar_Yonah_07-16-06.mp3)

[MannyIsGod]

Well, it did take on some life after sitting there for hours like a rotting turd.

You made your post 20 minutes after my OP. Hours? Are you so fucking stupid that you don't believe people can tell time?

You're not even good at being a hack.

[mogrovejo]

Actually, you obviously missed the whole point.

Tell me Micca, what makes it MORAL to invade another country and change their government through force?

Are you a utilitarianist?

Can't a war be morally legitimated ex-post? For example, would an American intervention in the II WW before Pearl Harbour be moral if it the result would have been to avoid the Holocaust?

[mogrovejo]

The UN inspectors, who had the best access and information, were ignored. They told us beforehand there were no WMD's in Iraq and they were right.

In which report? Can you provide a link?

[balli]

Really? Weak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

[LnGrrrR]

Can't a war be morally legitimated ex-post? For example, would an American intervention in the II WW before Pearl Harbour be moral if it the result would have been to avoid the Holocaust?

I don't believe so. That same logic would involve saying that it's fine to drive drunk, as long as you don't actually hit someone, wouldn't it?

[mogrovejo]

Thank you, but I certainly wasn't asking for a link to Mr. Blix wikipedia article.

I was asking for a link to the report or briefing from the UN inspectors before the invasion where it was said beforehand "there were no WMD's in Iraq".

Accordingly to Mr. Blix briefing to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, he explicitly stated that they weren't able to exclude the possibility that weapons of mass destruction exist and that to reach that conclusion they'd need credible evidence to that effect that was yet to be presented due to the lack of cooperation from Iraqi authorities.

Winehole stated something different so he certainly has access to information I'm not aware of. It's the link to that information I asked for.

[mogrovejo]

I don't believe so. That same logic would involve saying that it's fine to drive drunk, as long as you don't actually hit someone, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily, because a priori there's no right intention or just cause in the act of driving drunk. I think that driving drunk can be morally justified if one does it with, eg., the belief that he's driving someone with a risk of life to the hospital.

What should have been done to the Nazi leaders who were judged in the Nuremberg Trials if one refuses the concept of ex post legitimacy?

[LnGrrrR]

Accordingly to Mr. Blix briefing to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, he explicitly stated that they weren't able to exclude the possibility that weapons of mass destruction exist and that to reach that conclusion they'd need credible evidence to that effect that was yet to be presented due to the lack of cooperation from Iraqi authorities.


He was probably just covering his ass right there. However, it's quite a jump to go from "Probably NOT there" to "Definitely there".

[mogrovejo]

If a person is in power, by hook or by crook, that's all the legitimacy they need anyways. .

In that case, are all revolutionary or civil wars unjust? Including the American Revolutionary War?

[Winehole23]

In which report? Can you provide a link?I surely overstated their conclusions, and I thank you for the correction. My memory turned out a bit fuzzy. UNSCOM found no WMDs, nor any evidence of any programs, George Tenet's slam dunk notwithstanding. Surely it would have been imprudent for them to rule out that no WMDs or WMD facilities existed in Iraq.

But that they had found none after years of very intrusive inspections is true, and this fact received little consideration in the stampede to war. As it turned out, these findings gave a true picture of Saddam's WMD activity.

Perhaps my own memory of the way things unfolded was influenced by the Duelfer Report, which confirmed the UNSCOM findings.

I apologize to the board for the mistatement.

[mogrovejo]

Deleted.

[LnGrrrR]

Not necessarily, because a priori there's no right intention or just cause in the act of driving drunk. I think that driving drunk can be morally justified if one does it with, eg., the belief that he's driving someone with a risk of life to the hospital.

You're confusing the issue here, unintentionally I believe.

You asked two different questions originally, which I should have broken up.


Can't a war be morally legitimated ex-post?

If it is not moral to join the war, then it's not moral. You can't join a war for immoral or amoral reasons, and then graft some sort of "Well, things turned out OK, so it was alright" morality to it. Here's where I brought up the 'reverse' idea, that it would be ok to approve of drunk driving if nothing negative occurred.



For example, would an American intervention in the II WW before Pearl Harbour be moral if it the result would have been to avoid the Holocaust?


An American intervention could be seen as moral even if we weren't attacked first, yes, if it could be determined to save a greater amount of lives than would be lost, if it would mean upholding moral ideals, etc etc.

I'm not saying starting a war with someone without being attacked first is necessarily immoral. I'm just saying it's. IMHO, bad policy.


What should have been done to the Nazi leaders who were judged in the Nuremberg Trials if one refuses the concept of ex post legitimacy?

I'm not sure why you're conflating legitimacy with morality here. As you know, the winners make the rules. If the Axis had won, they would have seen their rules as legitimate.

Perhaps you could clarify what you meant here?

[LnGrrrR]

In that case, are all revolutionary or civil wars unjust? Including the American Revolutionary War?

Legitimacy /= Morality

I would think it rather obvious, but no, not all revolutions are unjust or immoral.

[spursncowboys]

I surely overstated their conclusions, and I thank you for the correction. My memory turned out a bit fuzzy. UNSCOM found no WMDs, nor any evidence of any programs, George Tenet's slam dunk notwithstanding. Surely it would have been imprudent for them to rule out that no WMDs or WMD facilities existed in Iraq.

But that they had found none after years of very intrusive inspections is true, and this fact received little consideration in the stampede to war. As it turned out, these findings gave a true picture of Saddam's WMD activity.

Perhaps my own memory of the way things unfolded was influenced by the Duelfer Report, which confirmed the UNSCOM findings.

I apologize to the board for the mistatement. You are truly a scholar and a gentleman.:toast

[mogrovejo]

You're confusing the issue here, unintentionally I believe.

You asked two different questions originally, which I should have broken up.


If it is not moral to join the war, then it's not moral. You can't join a war for immoral or amoral reasons, and then graft some sort of "Well, things turned out OK, so it was alright" morality to it. Here's where I brought up the 'reverse' idea, that it would be ok to approve of drunk driving if nothing negative occurred.

An American intervention could be seen as moral even if we weren't attacked first, yes, if it could be determined to save a greater amount of lives than would be lost, if it would mean upholding moral ideals, etc etc.

Isn't that a contradiction? It seems you think that it would have been moral if the US had entered the IIWW in 1941 and hypothetically prevented a genocide. In that case, and according to your previous stance, if it's not moral to join a war then it's not moral, ergo if it's moral to join a a war then it's moral, the decision to enter the IIWW earlier would always be more regardless of the outcome. Unless if "it could be determined" you mean ante facto. But men, not Gods, are making those decisions and that would subordinate the morality of the war to the outcome - if they were right in their cauculus the war would have been moral, if not then it wasn't moral, something that conflicts with your previous stance.


I'm not saying starting a war with someone without being attacked first is necessarily immoral. I'm just saying it's. IMHO, bad policy.


So, was the war in Iraq immoral or merely bad policy?


I'm not sure why you're conflating legitimacy with morality here. As you know, the winners make the rules. If the Axis had won, they would have seen their rules as legitimate.

Perhaps you could clarify what you meant here?

I'm talking stricly about morality or moral legitimacy. Does "the winners make the rules" moraly justifies the Nuremberg Trials?

[Winehole23]

I don't believe so. That same logic would involve saying that it's fine to drive drunk, as long as you don't actually hit someone, wouldn't it?In philosophy (Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel) this is sometimes referred to as moral luck.

From the wiki:


Moral luck is a phenomenon whereby a moral agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agent) is assigned moral blame or praise for an action or its consequences even though it is clear that said agent did not have full control over either the action or its consequences.Your focus on drunk driving turns out to be apt. It appears in this problem:


There are two people driving cars, Driver A, and Driver B. They are alike in every way. Driver A is driving down a road, and, in a second of inattention, runs a red light as an old lady is crossing the street. Driver A slams the brakes, swerves, in short, does everything to try to avoid hitting the woman – alas, she hits the woman and kills her. Driver B, in the meantime, also runs a red light, but since no woman is crossing, he gets a traffic ticket, but nothing more.


If a bystander were asked to morally evaluate Drivers A and B, there is very good reason to expect him to say that Driver A is due more moral blame than Driver B. After all, her course of action resulted in a death, whereas the course of action taken by Driver B was quite uneventful. However, there are absolutely no differences in the controllable actions performed by Drivers A and B. The only disparity is that in the case of Driver A, an external uncontrollable event occurred, whereas it did not in the case of Driver B. The external uncontrollable event, of course, is the woman crossing the street. In other words, there is no difference at all in what the two of them could have done – however, one seems clearly more to blame than the other. How does this occur?


This is the problem of moral luck. If it is given that moral responsibility should only be relevant when the agent voluntarily performed or failed to perform some action, Drivers A and B should be blamed equally, or praised equally, as may be the case. At the same time, this is at least intuitively problematic, as – whatever the external circumstances are – one situation resulted in an unfortunate death, and the other did not.

The case involves resultant moral luck, as does mogrovejo's question about justification after the fact.


Resultant moral luck concerns the consequences of actions and situations. In the above example, both drivers were affected by resultant moral luck in that a particular set of circumstances turned out in two different ways: in one situation, a pedestrian appeared on the road; in the other, she did not.War is surely a not a circumstance that is governed by the intentions of those who wage it, nor are its accidents or eventual course subject to much control. Whether or not a war is just seems to some to depend on the results of the war.

"Bad guys were killed, the world is better off for it."

This view is correct as far as it goes, but it is partial. If justification after the fact is subject to moral luck, so is the justification beforehand: our casus belli turned out to be a crock of shit. There were no WMDs. Saddam was not an imminent threat.

Ergo, our justification before the fact is nugatory (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nugatory). We waged an unjust war in Iraq, despite all our after the fact bids for legitimacy.

[mogrovejo]

If justification after the fact is subject to moral luck, so is the justification beforehand: our casus belli turned out to be a crock of shit. There were no WMDs. Saddam was not an imminent threat.

Ergo, our justification before the fact is nugatory (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nugatory). We waged an unjust war in Iraq, despite all our after the fact bids for legitimacy.

Just to clarify: if there were WMDs, the war would have been just or still unjust?

[Winehole23]

So, was the war in Iraq immoral or merely bad policy? The two are not mutually exclusive. IMO the answer is both.


I'm talking stricly about morality or moral legitimacy. Does "the winners make the rules" moraly justifies the Nuremberg Trials?
This is one of the problems with resultant moral luck: the winners are always morally justified in their own eyes, and define the criminality of the losers.

Force decides justice. By comparison, moral justification is a rhetorical flourish.

[Winehole23]

Just to clarify: if there were WMDs, the war would have been just or still unjust?Perhaps. In my mind there would have to be the real intention to use them on us. The threat would have to be actual. I don't think mere possession of WMDs satisfies that condition.

To be completely clear, I don't think just war theory compasses preemptive wars of aggression. I'm skeptical that they are ever moral, but I don't rule out that some future war might be.

[mogrovejo]

The two are not mutually exclusive. IMO the answer is both.

I didn't mean that the were were exclusive. I already knew he thought it was bad policy, I was wondering if it was morally unjust on the top of that or not.


This is one of the problems with resultant moral luck: the winners are always morally justified in their own eyes, and define the criminality of the losers.

Force decides justice. By comparison, moral justification is a rhetorical flourish.

Probably true. In that case, maybe moral concepts can't really be applied to a state's behaviour and the right thing to do is always to pursuit it's own security.

[Winehole23]

You are truly a scholar and a gentleman.:toastI screw up sometimes. IMO it's best to admit it promptly.

[MannyIsGod]

Perhaps. In my mind there would have to be the real intention to use them on us. The threat would have to be actual. I don't think mere possession of WMDs satisfies that condition.

To be completely clear, I don't think just war theory compasses preemptive wars of aggression. I'm skeptical that they are ever moral, but I don't rule out that some future war might be.

Just wary theory does indeed address preemptive war and it finds that preemptive war is indeed just. However, what we have here was the misuse of the word preemptive in place of preventative war which is not jus ad bellum.

[mogrovejo]

Perhaps. In my mind there would have to be the real intention to use them on us. The threat would have to be actual. I don't think mere possession of WMDs satisfies that condition.

To be completely clear, I don't think just war theory compasses preemptive wars of aggression. I'm skeptical that they are ever moral, but I don't rule out that some future war might be.

Clarified. The problem that may exist with that view is that it may force a state that wants to be moral to put at peril the safety of its citizens, precisely the most noble and morally justified function of a state. The reality is that if Churchill's advises in the 30s had been followed millions of human lifes would be saved and the civilization would be spared to the most horrific moments of its existence.

[Winehole23]

Probably true. In that case, maybe moral concepts can't really be applied to a state's behaviour and the right thing to do is always to pursuit it's own security.That occurred to me while I was replying to LnGrrR. I am more than somewhat sympathetic to realpolitik, and I wish there were more hardheaded realism in the conduct of our foreign policy. The damage done by so-called humanitarian wars for democracy and and "self-determination" is incalculable. More amoral realpolitical thinking might begin to stanch it.

My own feeling is that morality (or the decent scruples of civilized nations) and just war theory might in some limited way function to restrain the state's amoral pursuit of of its own ends.

What people love about America is its values, not its might.

Extruding the natural moral differences between nations from analysis would be a mistake IMO. Not only because it restrains us from unleashing war and its evils, but also because it is part of the culture for which we putatively fight, and for which others admire us.

If we win the battle but lose our souls we are losers too.

[Winehole23]

The reality is that if Churchill's advises in the 30s had been followed millions of human lifes would be saved and the civilization would be spared to the most horrific moments of its existence.Maybe. I don't think it's possible to determine with any certainty what would have happened, but you could be right.

[MannyIsGod]

Clarified. The problem that may exist with that view is that it may force a state that wants to be moral to put at peril the safety of its citizens, precisely the most noble and morally justified function of a state. The reality is that if Churchill's advises in the 30s had been followed millions of human lifes would be saved and the civilization would be spared to the most horrific moments of its existence.

Eh, I don't see any states out there that are trying to be moral tbh. Realists dominate foreign policy decisions even if they try to play themselves off as liberals (in the classic sense of the word).

[DMX7]

Because we're a free nation - and the greatest nation in the world. Our citizens have the freedom to make their own decisions and they can even choose to not believe in God or practice any religion. Al-Qaeda is all about control.

And - Al-Qaeda adhers to the most radical and violent parts of the Koran - you know, the parts where it says to kill the infidel and to convert using the sword. So - since the United States is "The Great Satan" they feel it is their duty to destroy us.

They hate us for our freedom. Wow, straight for the school of Bush. :depressed

[LnGrrrR]

Isn't that a contradiction? It seems you think that it would have been moral if the US had entered the IIWW in 1941 and hypothetically prevented a genocide.

Yes, I feel it could be.


In that case, and according to your previous stance, if it's not moral to join a war then it's not moral, ergo if it's moral to join a a war then it's moral, the decision to enter the IIWW earlier would always be more regardless of the outcome.

I'm not sure you understood me. I meant, the only morality on determining whether to join a war is at the TIME you join the war. Look at Iraq for instance. Some people could be morally justified in supporting the war if they thought there were WMDs that were going to be used against us or other countries in the near future. However, when it was determined that there WEREN'T weapons, the reason for their morality is shown to not be there.

Their decision is still moral though; as they decided based on the information available.

The opposite is true too though. Say two countries are fighting, and we want to share in the spoils. We join side A. Later, it's found that side B tortured. Just because good things came of our joining the war, does not mean the choice to enter the war was moral.


Unless if "it could be determined" you mean ante facto. But men, not Gods, are making those decisions and that would subordinate the morality of the war to the outcome - if they were right in their cauculus the war would have been moral, if not then it wasn't moral, something that conflicts with your previous stance.

That's why I explained the difference between legitimacy and morality.


So, was the war in Iraq immoral or merely bad policy?

Wel, the war in Iraq encompasses many things. I don't necessarily think the decision to go to war was immoral; however, not planning for the fallout of taking out their government definitely was. Given that Dick Cheney, in the first Gulf war, correctly described what would happen if we took Saddam down, ignorance can't be used as an excuse.


I'm talking stricly about morality or moral legitimacy. Does "the winners make the rules" moraly justifies the Nuremberg Trials?

Oh, no it does not. The fact is, the winners make the rules is a reality. That does not make each rule they create morally justified, no.

[LnGrrrR]

This view is correct as far as it goes, but it is partial. If justification after the fact is subject to moral luck, so is the justification beforehand: our casus belli turned out to be a crock of shit. There were no WMDs. Saddam was not an imminent threat.

Ergo, our justification before the fact is nugatory (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nugatory). We waged an unjust war in Iraq, despite all our after the fact bids for legitimacy.

Thanks for bringing up moral luck. Couldn't quite remember the term, but there's a reason I knew about the drunk driving analogy. :)

As I detailed above, our war did turn out to be unjust, but I can't fault the morality of the actors who agreed with that decision based on limited information.

[johnsmith]

AQ doesn't give a shit about US freedoms. That's just US idiots with their self-complimenting myth of the US as immaculately, faultlessly innocent.

1. US support for Israel and Israeli imperial Zionism (the Muslims see it) and

2. US military disfiguring/stationed on/desecrating "holy land" Saudi Arabian soil after the Gulf War, seen by Muslims also as US (oil) imperialism.

That and OBL wanted to help Kuwait so that the US would never have to come on over to the holy land in the first place.


Really, this thread could have ended with boutons quote above because it's pretty much correct.........the "they hate our freedom" thing is dumb.

[Winehole23]

As I detailed above, our war did turn out to be unjust, but I can't fault the morality of the actors who agreed with that decision based on limited information.I can.

Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises. Morality is a paper tiger if it lets us off the hook for decisions that are inevitably founded on imperfect information.

There's also the question of bona fides. Intelligence agencies were pressured to tailor their work product to GWB's predilection for war. When they did not comply to the degree desired, intelligence shops (OSP most notably) were set up in the DoD to cherry pick and stovepipe bad information and straight up fabrications to the president.

IMO the brief for war wasn't assembled in good faith. Deception and selectivity characterize the whole process. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O' Neill reports that Bush started asking for a cause of war in his very first week in office. Maintaining the pretense that the Administration had a good faith relationship to the Iraq intelligence is a bit of a stretch. It was an idee fixe. Not going to war was never an option. The results of investigation were tailored to suit this end.

That's immoral.

[DarrinS]

Since this thread is so 2003-ish, I thought I'd pile on.

Cwqh4wQPoQk

[LnGrrrR]

There's also the question of bona fides. Intelligence agencies were pressured to tailor their work product to GWB's predilection for war. When they did not comply to the degree desired, intelligence shops (OSP most notably) were set up in the DoD to cherry pick and stovepipe bad information and straight up fabrications to the president.

IMO the brief for war wasn't assembled in good faith. Deception and selectivity characterize the whole process. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O' Neill reports that Bush started asking for a cause of war in his very first week in office. Maintaining the pretense that the Administration had a good faith relationship to the Iraq intelligence is a bit of a stretch. It was an idee fixe. Not going to war was never an option. The results of investigation were tailored to suit this end.

That's immoral.

Ah WH23, you missed my little bit at the end. That's why I mentioned the "limited information" at the end of that. I don't fault the average person for supporting the Iraq War.

However, if the information you have ISN'T limited, and in fact isn't clear, but you massage it in order to only show what you want it to, then that IS immoral.

I agree that the administration used the intel in bad faith.


Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises. Morality is a paper tiger if it lets us off the hook for decisions that are inevitably founded on imperfect information.

It does not let one off the hook, so to speak, if due diligence hasn't been performed. But if an actor does due diligence, and later determines that said information is incorrect, I can hardly fault the man.

For instance, let's take the hypothetical of a firm developing a new drug. Said drug will, let's say, ease suffering of chemo patients. The firm tests the drug over a 5 year study and concludes the drug works, then release it on the market.

Now, 25 years later, it's found that the drug can lead to increased risk for heart problems. Should we conclude that the firm was immoral in releasing the drug? I think not.

I think the time of when a decision is made is key to the morality. For instance, slavery is obviously immoral, and I believe even our Founding Fathers knew that. However, I would consider it MORE immoral if America were to institute slavery nowadays, as opposed to back then. I feel morality evolves as we do (or, in the case of torture, devolves.)

[LnGrrrR]

Since this thread is so 2003-ish, I thought I'd pile on.

Morality is a fad from 2003?

[DarrinS]

Morality is a fad from 2003?

Hypocrisy never goes out of style.

[Wild Cobra]

Since this thread is so 2003-ish, I thought I'd pile on.

Cwqh4wQPoQk
How do the liberals justify their outrage?

They were the ones who told us about the threat, then all then they can say is "Bush Lied," when much if the intel he relied on was from them!

[Winehole23]

The Democratic party doesn't speak for me or the rest of the antiwar right.

It's one big happy war party. Pointing to the quiescence of the Dems on Iraq doesn't prove anyone's hypocrisy except for theirs.

[DarrinS]

Meanwhile, Obama is in Copenhagen to hard sell Chicago for the Olympics and General McChrystal has talked with Obama only once in 70 days and is still awaiting a response to his August memo -- all the while, things are getting worse in Afghanistan.


The silence form the left is deafening.


Also, remember back when the MSM wanted to photograph the flag-draped caskets of dead soldiers returning to the US? As of April this year, Obama lifted the press ban. Funny thing is, without Bush in office, the MSM has suddenly lost interest --> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Without-Bush-media-lose-interest-in-war-caskets-8310113-62427012.html

[Wild Cobra]

Meanwhile, Obama is in Copenhagen to hard sell Chicago for the Olympics
I was ready to start a new thread on that once I did a little fact checking.

[clambake]

choo choo had 8 years to bitch, but didn't.

[MannyIsGod]

Hypocrisy never goes out of style.

Who is being a hypocrit in this thread?

[MannyIsGod]

Meanwhile, Obama is in Copenhagen to hard sell Chicago for the Olympics and General McChrystal has talked with Obama only once in 70 days and is still awaiting a response to his August memo -- all the while, things are getting worse in Afghanistan.


The silence form the left is deafening.


Also, remember back when the MSM wanted to photograph the flag-draped caskets of dead soldiers returning to the US? As of April this year, Obama lifted the press ban. Funny thing is, without Bush in office, the MSM has suddenly lost interest --> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Without-Bush-media-lose-interest-in-war-caskets-8310113-62427012.html


Are you so upset with a thread that actually has substance and real discussion with very little bullshit that you have to come clutter it up with political rhetoric?

You're amazing.

[Winehole23]

Meanwhile, Obama is in Copenhagen to hard sell Chicago for the Olympics and General McChrystal has talked with Obama only once in 70 days and is still awaiting a response to his August memo -- all the while, things are getting worse in Afghanistan.


The silence form the left is deafening.


Also, remember back when the MSM wanted to photograph the flag-draped caskets of dead soldiers returning to the US? As of April this year, Obama lifted the press ban. Funny thing is, without Bush in office, the MSM has suddenly lost interest --> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Without-Bush-media-lose-interest-in-war-caskets-8310113-62427012.htmlBelongs in the other thread. Please pay attention, Darrin.

[DarrinS]

Are you so upset with a thread that actually has substance and real discussion with very little bullshit that you have to come clutter it up with political rhetoric?

You're amazing.

See first post on this page.

[LnGrrrR]

Anyways...

WH23, any rebuttal to my comment about morality, due diligence, etc etc above?

[Winehole23]

Anyways...

WH23, any rebuttal to my comment about morality, due diligence, etc etc above?As a rule of thumb, it makes good sense to privilege intention over results. I substantially agree with what you posted.

I'm not a moral luck absolutist; but neither am I an absolutist about morality going to intention alone, a la Kant.

[Winehole23]

Sorry for the brevity. I have to go to a trade show pretty soon.

[spursncowboys]

Since this thread is so 2003-ish, I thought I'd pile on.

Cwqh4wQPoQk Sandy Berger. Is that a sheet of paper under your shirt?

[spursncowboys]

Are you so upset with a thread that actually has substance and real discussion with very little bullshit that you have to come clutter it up with political rhetoric?

You're amazing. As opposed to your post? What substance does this hold? Glad you can be so closed minded towards people who are not as open minded as you.

[boutons_deux]

If Magic Negro didn't got to Kupenhavn, the right-wing shit-slingers would trash him for abandoning/forgetting the city he built his career in, his adopted home town.

They are only interested in trashing MN, no matter what he does, in everything he does.

[spursncowboys]

If Magic Negro didn't got to Kupenhavn, the right-wing shit-slingers would trash him for abandoning/forgetting the city he built his career in, his adopted home town.

They are only interested in trashing MN, no matter what he does, in everything he does. I don't see conservatives trying to make up false anger with what obama is throwing at them. I also doubt they having anything in their ideology about cronyism. Sure politicians do it in the name of conservatism, but rush and hannity and beck usually follow their ideas before a person.

[lefty]

Why does the CIA hate you?

I dunno

[boutons_deux]

"I don't see conservatives trying to make up false anger"

Their anger is all astroturf bullshit show business, to rouse their ignorant gun-toting loser rabble.

The Repugs would have bailed out the banksters, just like dubya started to do and McLiar would have continued.

again, if MN would have let Citi/BoA/WF/AIG all go to bankruptcy (where they still effectively are), the right-wingers would have trashed him for "destroying America" and not stopping the descent into extreme Depression.

[spursncowboys]

"I don't see conservatives trying to make up false anger"

Their anger is all astroturf bullshit show business, to rouse their ignorant gun-toting loser rabble.

The Repugs would have bailed out the banksters, just like dubya started to do and McLiar would have continued.

again, if MN would have let Citi/BoA/WF/AIG all go to bankruptcy (where they still effectively are), the right-wingers would have trashed him for "destroying America" and not stopping the descent into extreme Depression.
There was alot of conservatives who went against bush, because he went agianst their beliefs(immunity, bail outs). I was against all bail-outs. I don't believe govt. should decide what business is too big to fail. You write like a little kid. Half your words you wrote are put downs. Why is it astro turf? How come the Dem's paying people to go to meetings is not astro turf?

Once again, I hope you get a job trying to get libs elected.

[boutons_deux]

"I don't believe govt. should decide what business is too big to fail"

So who do you think should decide?

If no bail outs, what would you have done?

[Winehole23]

Just wary theory does indeed address preemptive war and it finds that preemptive war is indeed just. However, what we have here was the misuse of the word preemptive in place of preventative war which is not jus ad bellum.Thanks for the clarification.

I'll cede to your familiarity with the true terminology involved here. I was surely mistaken.


...do please continue.

[mogrovejo]

The invasion of Iran by the Allies in the II WW was a case of an uncontroversial preventive war that can easily be seen as justified.

[LnGrrrR]

The invasion of Iran by the Allies in the II WW was a case of an uncontroversial preventive war that can easily be seen as justified.

Care to explain the justification?

[MannyIsGod]

The invasion of Iran by the Allies in the II WW was a case of an uncontroversial preventive war that can easily be seen as justified.

Not according to Just War Theory. If you'd like to go down a path other than Jus Ad Bellum then that is your prerogative but that is not what is being discussed above and the words "easily" and "justified" are quite relative.

The main fact that the war was preventative points to all options not being used. If you have time before an attack and it is not imminent then you have options and war is not necessary at that point. Jus Ad Bellum requires war to be the last resort, not the most convenient or likely to succeed at that point.

[mogrovejo]

Care to explain the justification?

In tactical terms? It prevented the occupation of Persia by the Axis, allowing the Persian Corridor that was instrumental for the US supplies to the Soviet Union and eventually the success in the Eastern Front and the control of the oil fields.


Not according to Just War Theory. If you'd like to go down a path other than Jus Ad Bellum then that is your prerogative but that is not what is being discussed above and the words "easily" and "justified" are quite relative.

The main fact that the war was preventative points to all options not being used. If you have time before an attack and it is not imminent then you have options and war is not necessary at that point.Jus Ad Bellum requires war to be the last resort, not the most convenient or likely to succeed at that point.

Jus ad bellum as a concept can be even more vague than words like easily and it's a term used by 20th century politologysts to express their own particular opinions. The Just War as defined by Cicero, Saint Augustin and the Catholic Cathecisms don't demand the strict idea of last resort for military operations as long as intent, cause, authority and proportionality were included. The alternative not used was to allow the Axis to invade Persia.

ETA:


Quotation from FDR's letter to the Shah:

"Viewing the question in its entirety involves not only the vital questions to which Your Imperial Majesty refers, but other basic considerations arising from Hitler's ambition of world conquest. It is certain that movements of conquest by Germany will continue and will extend beyond Europe to Asia, Africa, and even to the Americas, unless they are stopped by military force. It is equally certain that those countries which desire to maintain their independence must engage in a great common effort if they are not to be engulfed one by one as has already happened to a large number of countries in Europe. In recognition of these truths, the Government and people of the United States of America, as is well known, are not only building up the defenses of this country with all possible speed, but they have also entered upon a very extensive program of material assistance to those countries which are actively engaged in resisting German ambition for world domination."

[LnGrrrR]

In tactical terms? It prevented the occupation of Persia by the Axis, allowing the Persian Corridor that was instrumental for the US supplies to the Soviet Union and eventually the success in the Eastern Front and the control of the oil fields.

I wouldn't say that would justify it morally, personally. It would justify it tactically, yes.


Jus ad bellum as a concept can be even more vague than words like easily and it's a term used by 20th century politologysts to express their own particular opinions. The Just War as defined by Cicero, Saint Augustin and the Catholic Cathecisms don't demand the strict idea of last resort for military operations as long as intent, cause, authority and proportionality were included. The alternative not used was to allow the Axis to invade Persia.

If the Axis were on the precipice of invading Persia, wouldn't that therefore make it a preemptive strike, and not preventative?

Additionally, we did not join the war against the Axis until we were attacked. Once we are attacked, we're free to attack them how we wish, as long as proportionality is observed and we try to limit civilian casualties.

[MannyIsGod]

In tactical terms? It prevented the occupation of Persia by the Axis, allowing the Persian Corridor that was instrumental for the US supplies to the Soviet Union and eventually the success in the Eastern Front and the control of the oil fields.



Jus ad bellum as a concept can be even more vague than words like easily and it's a term used by 20th century politologysts to express their own particular opinions. The Just War as defined by Cicero, Saint Augustin and the Catholic Cathecisms don't demand the strict idea of last resort for military operations as long as intent, cause, authority and proportionality were included. The alternative not used was to allow the Axis to invade Persia.

ETA:


Quotation from FDR's letter to the Shah:

"Viewing the question in its entirety involves not only the vital questions to which Your Imperial Majesty refers, but other basic considerations arising from Hitler's ambition of world conquest. It is certain that movements of conquest by Germany will continue and will extend beyond Europe to Asia, Africa, and even to the Americas, unless they are stopped by military force. It is equally certain that those countries which desire to maintain their independence must engage in a great common effort if they are not to be engulfed one by one as has already happened to a large number of countries in Europe. In recognition of these truths, the Government and people of the United States of America, as is well known, are not only building up the defenses of this country with all possible speed, but they have also entered upon a very extensive program of material assistance to those countries which are actively engaged in resisting German ambition for world domination."

What he speaks of is not preventative war but preemptive war. He believes is it Jus Ad Bellum because it is inevitable and war is indeed, the last resort.