Reply With Quote
well sure, since 2001 they had to attack countries who have troops in Afghanistan. But there were many other attacks too.
..but practicing Genocide on others is OK?
well sure, since 2001 they had to attack countries who have troops in Afghanistan. But there were many other attacks too.
spursandcowgirls you just got ruined ugly style by the all time leader in political ruinings
i saiddd
the embassy bombings in the 90's
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.
Yeah right. YOur telling me that the CIA didn't know who did the Cole?
Reagan's response to the terrorist attack in Beirut was to cut and run.
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.
That is simply not true. Did you read the links I provided?
As Manny said, that is quite inaccurate and laughably simplistic.
AQ doesn't give a 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.
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 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 . 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.
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,
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.
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?
no wonder the Republican party is in such shambles with this way of thinking.This is the full context.hundred of thousands of civilians. When in American history did our military do that?
You can't even post in the right thread.
Don't judge me. I blame the Cowboys lack of tackling.
AQ wants to turn the Middle East and Northern Africa into Islamic states with no US/Western influence. This includes Israel, too.
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.
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.
Bull 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.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-28-2009 at 10:12 PM.
Ding Ding Ding... here is your stuffed bear.
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.
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!!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.
Bull 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
