Reply With Quote
That's just an excuse - we've been supporting Israel far longer than Al-Qaeda has been attacking America.
Source?
That's just an excuse - we've been supporting Israel far longer than Al-Qaeda has been attacking America.
What about libertarian ideas such as the Cato ins ute? Are they jokes as well?
How does that mean it is not a factor in the decisions possible terrorists make?
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.
AL Q isnt
Every non-muslim country is a target. If you look on that wahabi wiki, it talks about who and why they target.
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
Are you saying libertarians are liberals?
Are Objectivists liberal too?
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.
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.
I said no such thing. I asked your opinion on libertarian foreign policy views.
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.
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.
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?
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.
when it's about their religion, yes.
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.
So whenever there is something about a country they don't like because of their religion they threaten to attack or attack, yes?
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?
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, Seyc es, 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/50037...from-al-qaeda-
http://www.redorbit.com/news/interna...ops/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?
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?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
