It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:29 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 571 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:56 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Clearly you are deflecting because you know it directly contradicts what you have said for pages.


The deflection was initiated by you and others that choose to ignore the role played by the U.S. Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention you made it about Islamic on Islamic attacks. Terrorism predates both the creation of the United States and the creation of Islam also. My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention. That was yours once you couldn't prove that aggression against the U.S. began with Islamic radicals.
So why not just answer the question and say that "No, American intervention is not the cause of Islamic terrorism"?


Because that was never the point that I made. I keep stating that it isn't relevant to what I'm referencing. Seriously Brick and I mean this in all honesty. Do you have a problem with comprehension? Or do u simply like to frame arguments to fit your belief system? It is a choice that is "binary" in nature.
So for the record, you do not think that American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism. Is that correct?


Against Muslims? No? Against America? Yes

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.




A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.


There is no justification for what the U.S. did in Iraq. U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates Iraq by at least 50 years. Muslims didn't target the U.S. until the U.S. took "multiple actions in the Middle East.



Here is my original point. Is there anything factually incorrect in this statement? It is also the reason that Brick's question isn't relevant.
You are mentioning American intervention in the Middle East in multiple threads. I want to know what the ultimate point of that is.

But, treat it as a separate question if you want and then answer it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Clearly you are deflecting because you know it directly contradicts what you have said for pages.


The deflection was initiated by you and others that choose to ignore the role played by the U.S. Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention you made it about Islamic on Islamic attacks. Terrorism predates both the creation of the United States and the creation of Islam also. My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention. That was yours once you couldn't prove that aggression against the U.S. began with Islamic radicals.
So why not just answer the question and say that "No, American intervention is not the cause of Islamic terrorism"?


Because that was never the point that I made. I keep stating that it isn't relevant to what I'm referencing. Seriously Brick and I mean this in all honesty. Do you have a problem with comprehension? Or do u simply like to frame arguments to fit your belief system? It is a choice that is "binary" in nature.
So for the record, you do not think that American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism. Is that correct?


American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism against America.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:01 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
I don't see why Islamic radicalism/fundamentalism shouldn't be understood as both a religious and a political phenomenon, much in the same way many scholars interpret the Protestant Reformation, the Crusades, or the origins of Christianity itself. In this sense, "terrorism" can be understood as a politically motivated reading of the Koran, one that responds to the local AND global social and economic conditions arising from Western imperialism. Some might argue that the monolithic and oppressive--but obviously spiritual--world view embodied in Islamic fundamentalism identifies that belief system as the logical outgrowth of an equally monolithic and oppressive--but highly materialistic--geopolitical system.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism against America.
Thank you.

So let's make a deal with the terrorists that we will stop bombing if they disband. Do they go away? We have now removed the cause of Islamic terrorism against America.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.




A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.


There is no justification for what the U.S. did in Iraq. U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates Iraq by at least 50 years. Muslims didn't target the U.S. until the U.S. took "multiple actions in the Middle East.



Here is my original point. Is there anything factually incorrect in this statement? It is also the reason that Brick's question isn't relevant.
You are mentioning American intervention in the Middle East in multiple threads. I want to know what the ultimate point of that is.

But, treat it as a separate question if you want and then answer it.


I addressed it in this thread. Have you answered my question? I doubt it and it really isn't difficult to understand.

See a high schooler can even discern it. Why can't you?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... K0GU-V9kRg

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33244
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Tall Midget wrote:
I don't see why Islamic radicalism/fundamentalism shouldn't be understood as both a religious and a political phenomenon, much in the same way many scholars interpret the Protestant Reformation, the Crusades, or the origins of Christianity itself. In this sense, "terrorism" can be understood as a politically motivated reading of the Koran, one that responds to the local AND global social and economic conditions arising from Western imperialism. Some might argue that the monolithic and oppressive--but obviously spiritual--world view embodied in Islamic fundamentalism identifies that belief system as the logical outgrowth of an equally monolithic and oppressive--but highly materialistic--geopolitical system.


Ok I read that twice and probably need to read it a few more times. Are you saying that they are merely using Islam/Koran as a way to justify their activities, i.e. interpreting the religion and text in such a way to rebel against global forces?

It would be akin to a Christian using select texts in the Bible to oppose gay marriage or homosexuality in general?

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism against America.
Thank you.

So let's make a deal with the terrorists that we will stop bombing if they disband. Do they go away? We have now removed the cause of Islamic terrorism against America.


Do we ask the KKK to disband? We should simply leave the region because it is not part of the United States. Whatever actions that they take should not concern the U.S. unless they take actions against the U.S.

American exceptionalism and manifest destiny theories dominate the political thought of this country. That is the problem. It prevents us from viewing things from the lense of others and necessitates that there will always be a pro-U.S. bias.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Clearly you are deflecting because you know it directly contradicts what you have said for pages.


The deflection was initiated by you and others that choose to ignore the role played by the U.S. Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention you made it about Islamic on Islamic attacks. Terrorism predates both the creation of the United States and the creation of Islam also. My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention. That was yours once you couldn't prove that aggression against the U.S. began with Islamic radicals.


Muslims have been aggressive towards the West since the 7th Century. Lets not pretend that the religion does not lay claim to dominance over infidels.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:19 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.




A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.


There is no justification for what the U.S. did in Iraq. U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates Iraq by at least 50 years. Muslims didn't target the U.S. until the U.S. took "multiple actions in the Middle East.



Here is my original point. Is there anything factually incorrect in this statement? It is also the reason that Brick's question isn't relevant.
You are mentioning American intervention in the Middle East in multiple threads. I want to know what the ultimate point of that is.

But, treat it as a separate question if you want and then answer it.


I addressed it in this thread. Have you answered my question? I doubt it and it really isn't difficult to understand.

See a high schooler can even discern it. Why can't you?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... K0GU-V9kRg


That article is on the right track. The U.S. ensured the permanent defeat of fascism following WWII by pursuing the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe as liberal states where economic, social and political power is somewhat evenly distributed throughout society. This strategy prevented the social marginalization that leads to reactionary mass movements. A similar plan needs to be pursued in the Middle East.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Do we ask the KKK to disband?
We would do a lot more than that if they engaged in terrorism.

long time guy wrote:
We should simply leave the region because it is not part of the United States. Whatever actions that they take should not concern the U.S. unless they take actions against the U.S.

American exceptionalism and manifest destiny theories dominate the political thought of this country. That is the problem. It prevents us from viewing things from the lense of others and necessitates that there will always be a pro-U.S. bias.
I'd be fine with that. I just doubt that the actions against us would stop. Outside of the original Iraq War(which was requested and welcomed by all but Iraq) we pretty much had stayed out of the region. Then Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan got together and it came to America.

By the way, what does Belgium and France do in the Middle East that causes their issues?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Clearly you are deflecting because you know it directly contradicts what you have said for pages.


The deflection was initiated by you and others that choose to ignore the role played by the U.S. Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention you made it about Islamic on Islamic attacks. Terrorism predates both the creation of the United States and the creation of Islam also. My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention. That was yours once you couldn't prove that aggression against the U.S. began with Islamic radicals.


Muslims have been aggressive towards the West since the 7th Century. Lets not pretend that the religion does not lay claim to dominance over infidels.


I'm sure that I can also find examples where there was Christian aggression against Muslims. The United States didn't exist during the 7th Century either.

In modern times the United States attempted to influence the politics of the Middle East and now they are resisting by utilization of terrorists groups.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16843
pizza_Place: Salerno's
France currently runs the show against ISIS. There are more French espadrilles on the ground against ISIS/IL than American boots and the French nuke aircraft carrier the Charles De Gaulle tells our ships over there what to do-- calls the shots, determines when to conduct air strikes etc.

When they looked into the backgrounds of the most identifiable leaders of ISIS/IL, they found one commonality on their linkedin profiles:

ex-Iraqi military. Secular.

The Islam stuff appears to be there to keep the troops and people in line, and to help suicide bombers get over their fear of being unalive.

One interpretation of the terror attacks in France is that they are ISIS taking the war to their enemy on their enemy's home turf. Is that a good idea/strategy? Debatable.

All ISIS really wants--and this seems to be a point of agreement among the various ISIS experts--is control of the territory they've identified as the caliphate. Currently that's only in Iraq/Syria. Any activity outside the caliphate region or beyond regions targeted by ISIS to expand the caliphate to is only conducted to help improve ISIS's control of the caliphate territory. But their plan/hope/dream is to control the Mediterranean region--same thing Saddam aspired to. Do they want it for religious reasons? Some no doubt do. Do they also want to control territory and resources for the age old reasons of money and power? Probably that's mostly what the ex-Iraqi military types are in it for.


Last edited by Hussra on Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Do we ask the KKK to disband?
We would do a lot more than that if they engaged in terrorism.

long time guy wrote:
We should simply leave the region because it is not part of the United States. Whatever actions that they take should not concern the U.S. unless they take actions against the U.S.

American exceptionalism and manifest destiny theories dominate the political thought of this country. That is the problem. It prevents us from viewing things from the lense of others and necessitates that there will always be a pro-U.S. bias.
I'd be fine with that. I just doubt that the actions against us would stop. Outside of the original Iraq War(which was requested and welcomed by all but Iraq) we pretty much had stayed out of the region. Then Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan got together and it came to America.

By the way, what does Belgium and France do in the Middle East that causes their issues?


I'm going to leave Belgium and France alone but there was once this thing called the Belgium Conf. You may want to look it up.


We were in the Middle East well before the first gulf war. I'm not trying to be flip but you have to check the history BRick. That is the biggest problem. Propaganda and the reliance on it kills these discussions.

America's as well as the fingerprints of the "West" have been all over the Middle East since we discovered that they had large oil reserves. Research the formation of Iraq and the actors behind it. Same with Israel.

Ironically we are concerned about terrorism in the middle east yet we take a hands off approach to the 2 largest sponsors. Saudi Arabia and Iran go largely unchecked while he overthrow countries like Iraq.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Do we ask the KKK to disband?
We would do a lot more than that if they engaged in terrorism.

long time guy wrote:
We should simply leave the region because it is not part of the United States. Whatever actions that they take should not concern the U.S. unless they take actions against the U.S.

American exceptionalism and manifest destiny theories dominate the political thought of this country. That is the problem. It prevents us from viewing things from the lense of others and necessitates that there will always be a pro-U.S. bias.
I'd be fine with that. I just doubt that the actions against us would stop. Outside of the original Iraq War(which was requested and welcomed by all but Iraq) we pretty much had stayed out of the region. Then Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan got together and it came to America.

By the way, what does Belgium and France do in the Middle East that causes their issues?


I'm going to leave Belgium and France alone but there was once this thing called the Belgium Conf. You may want to look it up.


We were in the Middle East well before the first gulf war. I'm not trying to be flip but you have to check the history BRick. That is the biggest problem. Propaganda and the reliance on it kills these discussions.

America's as well as the fingerprints of the "West" have been all over the Middle East since we discovered that they had large oil reserves. Research the formation of Iraq and the actors behind it. Same with Israel.

Ironically we are concerned about terrorism in the middle east yet we take a hands off approach to the 2 largest sponsors. Saudi Arabia and Iran go largely unchecked while he overthrow countries like Iraq.
It seems like you think you can just say "We were there prior to X" like it is some sort of magical answer. Lots of countries have been there for much longer. Some of them have been there longer than we've been a country.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
I'm sure that I can also find examples where there was Christian aggression against Muslims. The United States didn't exist during the 7th Century either.

In modern times the United States attempted to influence the politics of the Middle East and now they are resisting by utilization of terrorists groups.


What year did Christians attempt to conquer Mecca? Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna three times. Muslims ruled Catholic Spain.
The Crusades were inspired by freeing the Holy Land from Muslim oppression of Christians.

Has the West meddled in the Middle East? Certainly, but I don't think that the Muslims have much guilt for their history of invading Europe which carried on until the 19th century.

It's more than just American actions in the Middle East that causes Islamic terrorism. Do we have Latin American or Vietnamese terrorists blowing up things in New York?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Hussra wrote:
France currently runs the show against ISIS. Their are more French espadrilles on the ground against ISIS/IL than American boots and the French nuke aircraft carrier the Charles De Gaulle tells our ships over there what to do-- calls the shots, determines when to conduct air strikes etc.

When they looked into the backgrounds of the most identifiable leaders of ISIS/IL, they found one commonality on their linkedin profiles:

ex-Iraqi military. Secular.

The Islam stuff appears to be there to keep the troops and people in line, and to help suicide bombers get over their fear of being unalive.

One interpretation of the terror attacks in France is that they are ISIS taking the war to their enemy on their enemy's home turf. Is that a good idea/strategy? Debatable.

All ISIS really wants--and this seems to be a point of agreement among the various ISIS experts--is control of the territory they've identified as the caliphate. Currently that's only in Iraq/Syria. Any activity outside the caliphate region or beyond regions targeted by ISIS to expand the caliphate to is only conducted to help improve ISIS's control of the caliphate territory. But their plan/hope/dream is to control the Mediterranean region--same thing Saddam aspired to. Do they want it for religious reasons? Some no doubt do. Do they also want to control territory and resources for the age old reasons of money and power? Probably that's mostly what the ex-Iraqi military types are in it for.


Once again thanks for providing "Facts". The struggle in Iraq is between a Sunni minority (pro Saddam) and a Shia (anti Saddam) majority. Saddam was a secularist and when they disbanded Iraq there was bound to be conflict between these 2 factions. Saddam was able to keep a lid on these tensions by use of dubious and often murderous tactics. This conflict is considered to be almost an ethnic and not a religious conflict. It is about territory.

Ultimately it comes down to which group will control the oil fields. That is what the Sunnis, Shiites, and the "West" all are vying for. Discussions about religion distract from this aspect of the conflict.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:08 am
Posts: 14018
Location: Underneath the Grace of Timothy Richard Tebow
pizza_Place: ------
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I'm sure that I can also find examples where there was Christian aggression against Muslims. The United States didn't exist during the 7th Century either.

In modern times the United States attempted to influence the politics of the Middle East and now they are resisting by utilization of terrorists groups.


What year did Christians attempt to conquer Mecca? Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna three times. Muslims ruled Catholic Spain.
The Crusades were inspired by freeing the Holy Land from Muslim oppression of Christians.

Has the West meddled in the Middle East? Certainly, but I don't think that the Muslims have much guilt for their history of invading Europe which carried on until the 19th century.

It's more than just American actions in the Middle East that causes Islamic terrorism. Do we have Latin American or Vietnamese terrorists blowing up things in New York?

The man in the black pajamas dude. Now there was a worthy fucking adversary. Whereas what we have here? A bunch of fig-eaters wearing towels on their heads, trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy adversary.

_________________
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rpb is wrong. Phil McCracken is useful.

Chus wrote:
RPB is right. You suck. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Do we ask the KKK to disband?
We would do a lot more than that if they engaged in terrorism.

long time guy wrote:
We should simply leave the region because it is not part of the United States. Whatever actions that they take should not concern the U.S. unless they take actions against the U.S.

American exceptionalism and manifest destiny theories dominate the political thought of this country. That is the problem. It prevents us from viewing things from the lense of others and necessitates that there will always be a pro-U.S. bias.
I'd be fine with that. I just doubt that the actions against us would stop. Outside of the original Iraq War(which was requested and welcomed by all but Iraq) we pretty much had stayed out of the region. Then Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan got together and it came to America.

By the way, what does Belgium and France do in the Middle East that causes their issues?


I'm going to leave Belgium and France alone but there was once this thing called the Belgium Conf. You may want to look it up.


We were in the Middle East well before the first gulf war. I'm not trying to be flip but you have to check the history BRick. That is the biggest problem. Propaganda and the reliance on it kills these discussions.

America's as well as the fingerprints of the "West" have been all over the Middle East since we discovered that they had large oil reserves. Research the formation of Iraq and the actors behind it. Same with Israel.

Ironically we are concerned about terrorism in the middle east yet we take a hands off approach to the 2 largest sponsors. Saudi Arabia and Iran go largely unchecked while he overthrow countries like Iraq.
It seems like you think you can just say "We were there prior to X" like it is some sort of magical answer. Lots of countries have been there for much longer. Some of them have been there longer than we've been a country.


I'm not concerned about other countries you are. It's not relevant to anything that I have addressed.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
We are talking about international politics. :lol: Of course other countries matter.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Rick, there is a middle ground that one can argue. It doesn't have to be "American foreign policy causes all terrorism" or "American foreign policy has no effect on terrorism." It is okay for someone to say that it is a contributing factor without saying that it is wholly responsible for terrorism.

That's not my view either way. Just making an observation.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Tall Midget wrote:
I don't see why Islamic radicalism/fundamentalism shouldn't be understood as both a religious and a political phenomenon, much in the same way many scholars interpret the Protestant Reformation, the Crusades, or the origins of Christianity itself. In this sense, "terrorism" can be understood as a politically motivated reading of the Koran, one that responds to the local AND global social and economic conditions arising from Western imperialism. Some might argue that the monolithic and oppressive--but obviously spiritual--world view embodied in Islamic fundamentalism identifies that belief system as the logical outgrowth of an equally monolithic and oppressive--but highly materialistic--geopolitical system.


That few bother to honestly address this solid line irritates me to no end. That few media outlets will even discuss this framing is telling. But its commonly accepted practice since much of the West revels in the desire not to address or find commonalities with our own history & misdeeds.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I'm sure that I can also find examples where there was Christian aggression against Muslims. The United States didn't exist during the 7th Century either.

In modern times the United States attempted to influence the politics of the Middle East and now they are resisting by utilization of terrorists groups.


What year did Christians attempt to conquer Mecca? Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna three times. Muslims ruled Catholic Spain.
The Crusades were inspired by freeing the Holy Land from Muslim oppression of Christians.

Has the West meddled in the Middle East? Certainly, but I don't think that the Muslims have much guilt for their history of invading Europe which carried on until the 19th century.

It's more than just American actions in the Middle East that causes Islamic terrorism. Do we have Latin American or Vietnamese terrorists blowing up things in New York?


So the U.S. is avenging 7th Century Muslim conquests in Europe?

I don't think that we are currently dropping bombs in Latin America and Vietnam. Maybe you know something I dont.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Regular Reader wrote:
the West revels in the desire not to address or find commonalities with our own history & misdeeds.


#Truth

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
We are talking about international politics. :lol: Of course other countries matter.


So you are an interventionist and one who believes in regime change?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Rick, there is a middle ground that one can argue. It doesn't have to be "American foreign policy causes all terrorism" or "American foreign policy has no effect on terrorism." It is okay for someone to say that it is a contributing factor without saying that it is wholly responsible for terrorism.

That's not my view either way. Just making an observation.
ltg doesn't seem to be making that argument though that it is just a contributing factor, and I'm certainly not making the argument that our actions have no effect on it. I personally believe that most of the reasons for Islamic terrorism are not our fault though. Some of our actions are also the right ones but they do contribute to terrorism too.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:59 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Regular Reader wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
I don't see why Islamic radicalism/fundamentalism shouldn't be understood as both a religious and a political phenomenon, much in the same way many scholars interpret the Protestant Reformation, the Crusades, or the origins of Christianity itself. In this sense, "terrorism" can be understood as a politically motivated reading of the Koran, one that responds to the local AND global social and economic conditions arising from Western imperialism. Some might argue that the monolithic and oppressive--but obviously spiritual--world view embodied in Islamic fundamentalism identifies that belief system as the logical outgrowth of an equally monolithic and oppressive--but highly materialistic--geopolitical system.


That few bother to honestly address this solid line irritates me to no end. That few media outlets will even discuss this framing is telling. But its commonly accepted practice since much of the West revels in the desire not to address or find commonalities with our own history & misdeeds.


Because that view of terrorism is directly at odds with historical facts.

I have no issue with discussing the misdeeds of the United States. I addressed that earlier in this thread. The issue is the unwillingness of so many to not address, and dare I say deny the historical and present day reality of the actions of Mohammed and many of his followers since then.

The modern day "terrorist" gladly [b]accepts and embraces [/b]the fact they are doing exactly what the prophet did. Here and in many other places, it is others who will not discuss this fact or refuse to acknowledge it.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:04 am 
Seacrest wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
I don't see why Islamic radicalism/fundamentalism shouldn't be understood as both a religious and a political phenomenon, much in the same way many scholars interpret the Protestant Reformation, the Crusades, or the origins of Christianity itself. In this sense, "terrorism" can be understood as a politically motivated reading of the Koran, one that responds to the local AND global social and economic conditions arising from Western imperialism. Some might argue that the monolithic and oppressive--but obviously spiritual--world view embodied in Islamic fundamentalism identifies that belief system as the logical outgrowth of an equally monolithic and oppressive--but highly materialistic--geopolitical system.


That few bother to honestly address this solid line irritates me to no end. That few media outlets will even discuss this framing is telling. But its commonly accepted practice since much of the West revels in the desire not to address or find commonalities with our own history & misdeeds.


Because that view of terrorism is directly at odds with historical facts.

I have no issue with discussing the misdeeds of the United States. I addressed that earlier in this thread. The issue is the unwillingness of so many to not address, and dare I say deny the historical and present day reality of the actions of Mohammed and many of his followers since then.

The modern day "terrorist" gladly [b]accepts and embraces [/b]the fact they are doing exactly what the prophet did. Here and in many other places, it is others who will not discuss this fact or refuse to acknowledge it.

How is that any different (and yes I know they aren't killing them) than people trying to use the teachings of The Bible to try and justify not baking a cake or delivering a pizza? Yes one is much more to the extreme, but the concept is the same.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:07 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80568
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Does the U.S. have anything to do with Muslims wanting to cut the heads off cartoonists? And you can save "not all Muslims!" because we all know it's not all Muslims. The fact is though, it's a significant number of them. It's not just a goofy family of 25 people like the Westboro Baptist Church.

I've ridiculed wacky Christian beliefs in this forum as much or more than I have Muslims beliefs. And Seacrest is still my friend. He sincerely hopes I will one day see the light and change my evil ways. He has never expressed a desire to chop off my head. That should tell you a lot about the difference between Christians and Muslims circa 2016.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80568
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Baby McNown wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
I don't see why Islamic radicalism/fundamentalism shouldn't be understood as both a religious and a political phenomenon, much in the same way many scholars interpret the Protestant Reformation, the Crusades, or the origins of Christianity itself. In this sense, "terrorism" can be understood as a politically motivated reading of the Koran, one that responds to the local AND global social and economic conditions arising from Western imperialism. Some might argue that the monolithic and oppressive--but obviously spiritual--world view embodied in Islamic fundamentalism identifies that belief system as the logical outgrowth of an equally monolithic and oppressive--but highly materialistic--geopolitical system.


That few bother to honestly address this solid line irritates me to no end. That few media outlets will even discuss this framing is telling. But its commonly accepted practice since much of the West revels in the desire not to address or find commonalities with our own history & misdeeds.


Because that view of terrorism is directly at odds with historical facts.

I have no issue with discussing the misdeeds of the United States. I addressed that earlier in this thread. The issue is the unwillingness of so many to not address, and dare I say deny the historical and present day reality of the actions of Mohammed and many of his followers since then.

The modern day "terrorist" gladly [b]accepts and embraces [/b]the fact they are doing exactly what the prophet did. Here and in many other places, it is others who will not discuss this fact or refuse to acknowledge it.

How is that any different (and yes I know they aren't killing them) than people trying to use the teachings of The Bible to try and justify not baking a cake or delivering a pizza? Yes one is much more to the extreme, but the concept is the same.


They're both goofy, but one just leaves a couple gay dudes to find another pastry shop while the other ends people's lives.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 571 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group