ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd December 2019, 10:28 AM   #1
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,853
Al Qaeda, ISIS, Western imperialism

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I do not know if there was any actual contact or relation between the Islamic State and Khan (perhaps not). Nevertheless, it seems to me Western policies based on expansionism, illegal invasions, sanctions, censorship and massive killing of militants are perhaps not exactly the best method to make many friends in the Islamic world. Perhaps there was indeed some kind of relationship between these policies and Khan's undoubtedly violent action.
This is historically ignorant twaddle.

First, do you know the first war that the United States engaged in, after our war of independence? It wasn't an expansionist one. Look it up, it's interesting.

Second, you've got to be kidding me with the censorship angle. The West is so vastly less censorious than the Islamic world that it's not even funny. Unless you're claiming that we're insuficiently censorious, but they can **** off and die on that topic.

Third, in case you haven't noticed, Islam itself is fundamentally expansionist. And it frequently expands at swordpoint. The Islamists aren't opposed to violent conquest, they only object if they're not the ones doing it. The Islamic world has bloody borders, even today, and not just in the west.

Fourth, have you ever heard of a man by the name of Sayyid Qutb? He's one of the founders of modern radical Islam. You know what his grievances against the West were? He got his panties in a bunch about decadent westerners because of stuff like a church dance. Our basic culture (and not even the current one, 1950's American culture) was offensively hedonistic and sinful to him.

Political Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western liberalism. Violent conflict is inevitable. Not because of what we do, but because of who we are. Our very existence serves as a corrupting force, from their viewpoint. And they aren't wrong, in the sense that our prosperity and freedom can seduce people away from strict adherence to Islam. Unless you give up that prosperity and freedom, you cannot ever hope to appease them.


Mod InfoSplit from this thread.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by zooterkin; 4th December 2019 at 04:37 AM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 01:00 PM   #2
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,286
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
You should also note this is as of 2009. The report cited is from 2017. I don't even dispute the 2009 report as inaccurate, it could well be spot on - just eight to ten years out of date.



Afganistan is not under foreign occupation. The country is ruled by an internationally recognized Afghani government, assisted by foreign forces to fight a domestic insurrection of Islamic supremacists.

Afghan government and the world at large consider them terrorists, thanks to all the terrorist attacks they do. Not all of their actions may be recognized as such, but this is senmantics.

McHrozni
Or it is governed by a government forced on it by the foreign invading forces that overthrew the Taliban government in an unprovoked attack (the Taliban government had nothing to do with the planning or implementation of 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US). A government that is only maintained in power by the foreign forces because it does not have the support of the people. I understand that resisting US invaders is regarded by the US as terrorism, but as liberation forces if the invading force or the elected government is left of centre.

The taliban do participate in terrorism, some detainees may have participated in terrorism before and have done since, or they may have been radicalised because though previously 'innocent' they were kidnapped, tortured, and in the mean time their families have been killed by collateral bombing, and now they have little left other than seeking revenge.

If we are being honest, the success of deradicalising terrorists is likely well below 100%, one thing we knows that tends to deradicalise people is time and age. Terrorism tends to be young mans game. Keeping people in prison until after they are 40 is another way of reducing risk.

Unfortunately as has been said above it is likely some people will go back to their old bad ways and maybe we have to accept a certain level of risk if we are not going to detain people for life.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 01:19 PM   #3
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,853
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Or it is governed by a government forced on it by the foreign invading forces that overthrew the Taliban government in an unprovoked attack (the Taliban government had nothing to do with the planning or implementation of 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US).
Oh please. The Taliban sheltered and protected Al Qaeda. That's pretty damned significant provocation.

Quote:
A government that is only maintained in power by the foreign forces because it does not have the support of the people.
The Taliban doesn't have the support of "the people" either. Absent Pakistani support, the Taliban wouldn't even exist.

Quote:
The taliban do participate in terrorism, some detainees may have participated in terrorism before and have done since, or they may have been radicalised because though previously 'innocent' they were kidnapped, tortured, and in the mean time their families have been killed by collateral bombing, and now they have little left other than seeking revenge.
The Taliban were committing acts of terrorism long before we invaded Afghanistan. Their primary targets to this day are not US or other foreign forces, but other Afghanis. They don't attack school children out of revenge. They don't beat women for being uncovered because their families were killed by US bombs. They are driven by a barbaric and murderous ideology, one which we are not the cause of, which is not a response to any sin on our part.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 01:21 PM   #4
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,286
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is historically ignorant twaddle.

First, do you know the first war that the United States engaged in, after our war of independence? It wasn't an expansionist one. Look it up, it's interesting.

Second, you've got to be kidding me with the censorship angle. The West is so vastly less censorious than the Islamic world that it's not even funny. Unless you're claiming that we're insuficiently censorious, but they can **** off and die on that topic.

Third, in case you haven't noticed, Islam itself is fundamentally expansionist. And it frequently expands at swordpoint. The Islamists aren't opposed to violent conquest, they only object if they're not the ones doing it. The Islamic world has bloody borders, even today, and not just in the west.

Fourth, have you ever heard of a man by the name of Sayyid Qutb? He's one of the founders of modern radical Islam. You know what his grievances against the West were? He got his panties in a bunch about decadent westerners because of stuff like a church dance. Our basic culture (and not even the current one, 1950's American culture) was offensively hedonistic and sinful to him.

Political Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western liberalism. Violent conflict is inevitable. Not because of what we do, but because of who we are. Our very existence serves as a corrupting force, from their viewpoint. And they aren't wrong, in the sense that our prosperity and freedom can seduce people away from strict adherence to Islam. Unless you give up that prosperity and freedom, you cannot ever hope to appease them.
Some strains of political Islam are fundamentally incompatible, others not. The problem is that this is not political islam but fundamental religious islam. You might as well say because of facism that Political Europeanism is fundamentally incompatible with Western liberalism. Western liberalism in the McCarthy era was fundamentally incompatible with modern western liberalism. Segregation, abortion was illegal, homosexuality was illegal, no equality.

It is worth remembering the caliphate was far more religiously tolerant than Europe. There was a widespread Jewish population under the caliphate (and christian), pogroms and the holocaust were a European / Christian / liberal democratic phenomenon. The problem with Israel for Islamic fundamentalists is not the Jewish population, the problem is that it is a Jewish state ruling muslims. From a religious point of view this is unacceptable. If there was a Muslim palestinian state from the religious view point the Jewish population could remain in situ. When Islamic organisations talk about destroying Israel it is the political / religious nature of the government that is objected to not the people on the ground. Though there is a feeling that Europe dumped its problem as a result of its war and its bigotry on the people of the middle east.

Now to emphasise because I am putting contrary points of view this does not mean I agree with them. I am putting up an argument, you should not assume that these represent my personal beliefs, just that these are arguments that are made and need to be addressed.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 01:34 PM   #5
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,286
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

The Taliban doesn't have the support of "the people" either. Absent Pakistani support, the Taliban wouldn't even exist.

The Taliban were committing acts of terrorism long before we invaded Afghanistan. Their primary targets to this day are not US or other foreign forces, but other Afghanis. They don't attack school children out of revenge. They don't beat women for being uncovered because their families were killed by US bombs. They are driven by a barbaric and murderous ideology, one which we are not the cause of, which is not a response to any sin on our part.
I agree with the above. But there are people who do see the US forces as an occupying power and those participating in the attacks on foreign forces as participating in a war of liberation. There is not a single monolithic Taliban, it is as alliance of disparate forces, some are more committed to the anti-US struggle some to what would be standard terrorist political actions to overthrow the current government.

I do not know the extent to which the Taliban sheltered Al Quaeda, nor do I know the extent of the Taliban's knowledge of the actions of Al Quaeda outside of Afghanistan. It seems generally accepted that the Taliban new nothing of 9/11 until after the event.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 01:35 PM   #6
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,853
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Some strains of political Islam are fundamentally incompatible, others not.
No. There are strains of nonpolitical Islam that are compatible, but all strains of political Islam are incompatible.

Quote:
It is worth remembering the caliphate was far more religiously tolerant than Europe.
Europe underwent the Reformation/Enlightenment. Islam has never experienced anything similar. Comparisons from many centuries ago when things were completely different don't matter.

Quote:
The problem with Israel for Islamic fundamentalists is not the Jewish population
That's not what the Islamists say.

Quote:
If there was a Muslim palestinian state from the religious view point the Jewish population could remain in situ.
In a state of dhimmitude.

Quote:
When Islamic organisations talk about destroying Israel it is the political / religious nature of the government that is objected to not the people on the ground.
Again, this is manifestly not true. They talk openly about killing people because they are Jewish, regardless of where they are.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:39 PM   #7
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,286
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

Europe underwent the Reformation/Enlightenment. Islam has never experienced anything similar. Comparisons from many centuries ago when things were completely different don't matter.
I think you may not realise the caliphate ceased to exist in the 1920s just 100 years ago.

European anti semitism did not stop with the Reformation / Enlightenment. You persist in seeing the issue through the European lens of the holocaust; this was a product of European liberal democracy, and the guilt for this is projected on to muslims. Because Europeans committed a holocaust you try to project that onto Islamic culture. I am sure you can find extremist terrorists who argue for killing Jews (the classical examples were PLO an organisation that was influenced by European Marxist concepts rather than Islamic). This is not the same as the European concept of racial guilt and genocide.

I may not understand what you mean by political Islam. Islam is a way of life, similar to Judaism and different from Christianity. There is not an easy split between secular and religious in Islam. There are many Islamic political parties that are liberal. There are a wide range of interpretations of Islam. From Sufi through Wahabi. There are different views just as there are in Judaism between ultra-orthodox and liberal Jews. Just as there are between the Amish, Quakers, Episcopalians and Catholics (accepting that the catholic church no longer burns heretics, jews or wages crusades).Many of the fundamental Islamic groups are primarily religious driven, their attacks are far more strenuous against those they see as heretical, (which would include my own family), than against any political opponents.

Last edited by Planigale; 2nd December 2019 at 02:41 PM.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 03:06 PM   #8
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,853
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I may not understand what you mean by political Islam.
Meaning that they believe religion must dominate political life, not just personal life.

Quote:
Islam is a way of life, similar to Judaism and different from Christianity. There is not an easy split between secular and religious in Islam. There are many Islamic political parties that are liberal.
No, there are not. There may be many which aren't radical, but there are none that are what anyone in the west would consider liberal.

Quote:
There are a wide range of interpretations of Islam. From Sufi through Wahabi.
I would consider the Sufis to be nonpolitical Islam. The Wahabis are absolutely political.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 03:32 PM   #9
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First, do you know the first war that the United States engaged in, after our war of independence? It wasn't an expansionist one. Look it up, it's interesting.
Sorry, I don't know which one you are talking about (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States).
Quote:
Second, you've got to be kidding me with the censorship angle.
Not everybody is laughing about censorship by the U.S. or the West. Only a few hours ago, Planigale said, in this thread:
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
So being critical of US foreign policy may be enough to get you labelled as a terrorist. Certainly the US has assassinated people whose speach they found unfriendly. The right to free speach only extends to US citizens.
.
Quote:
The West is so vastly less censorious than the Islamic world that it's not even funny. Unless you're claiming that we're insuficiently censorious, but they can **** off and die on that topic.
I am certainly not praising "freedom of speech" in the Islamic world, and I think people should have a right to draw "the prophet" and to make funny cartoons. I don't believe you are yourself against freedom of speech, from what I can judge, but there may be some people on this forum who harbor considerably more scary views .
Quote:
Third, in case you haven't noticed, Islam itself is fundamentally expansionist. And it frequently expands at swordpoint. The Islamists aren't opposed to violent conquest, they only object if they're not the ones doing it. The Islamic world has bloody borders, even today, and not just in the west.
I am not talking about events of the past, before there was a U.N. Charter, though I know the British built a very big, worlwide, empire through conquest. I am not aware of any expansionist conquest by an Islamic nation nowadays, but I know (or I believe I know) Israel is stealing more land every month to the Palestinians with "barbaric" U.S. support.
Quote:
Fourth, have you ever heard of a man by the name of Sayyid Qutb? He's one of the founders of modern radical Islam. You know what his grievances against the West were? He got his panties in a bunch about decadent westerners because of stuff like a church dance. Our basic culture (and not even the current one, 1950's American culture) was offensively hedonistic and sinful to him.
I suspect Qutb was a somewhat more complex intellectual than what you are describing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb). He was "executed" (and therefore killed) at 59, even though I am not aware he killed any one himself.

Quote:
Political Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western liberalism. Violent conflict is inevitable. Not because of what we do, but because of who we are. Our very existence serves as a corrupting force, from their viewpoint. And they aren't wrong, in the sense that our prosperity and freedom can seduce people away from strict adherence to Islam. Unless you give up that prosperity and freedom, you cannot ever hope to appease them.
You are sounding very radical yourself (do you have a brother in some Islamic country? Sorry, this was just a stupid joke).
When ISIS claimed responsibility for the London bridge attack, they did not say "Make no mistake about it, we are not killing you because of what you do, we are killing you because of what YOU ARE".
They said:
Quote:
... the attack was made in response to Islamic State calls to target countries that have been part of a coalition fighting the jihadist group.
(https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...onference.html).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 11:48 PM   #10
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Or it is governed by a government forced on it by the foreign invading forces that overthrew the Taliban government in an unprovoked attack (the Taliban government had nothing to do with the planning or implementation of 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US).
Taliban were never the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan, they were de facto a rebel group at war with Northern Alliance. Taliban were never anything but usurpers, supported by Pakistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance

Quote:
A government that is only maintained in power by the foreign forces because it does not have the support of the people.
No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_A...ntial_election

The government (with foreign backers) is trying to create a functional democracy but is hampered at every turn by threats of violence from the Taliban. Bombing campaign rallies and threatning to kill people who dare cast their ballots are not legitimate ways to fight anyone, let alone foreign forces who do not participate in the election at all.

Quote:
The taliban do participate in terrorism, some detainees may have participated in terrorism before and have done since, or they may have been radicalised because though previously 'innocent' they were kidnapped, tortured, and in the mean time their families have been killed by collateral bombing, and now they have little left other than seeking revenge.
This 'seeking revenge' thing is a meme unsupported by facts. By and large terrorists, including suicide terrorists, come from well to do families and have no personal grief they want to repay. I fail to see how so many people fall into the trap of believing such an obvious lie.

Quote:
If we are being honest, the success of deradicalising terrorists is likely well below 100%, one thing we knows that tends to deradicalise people is time and age. Terrorism tends to be young mans game. Keeping people in prison until after they are 40 is another way of reducing risk.

Unfortunately as has been said above it is likely some people will go back to their old bad ways and maybe we have to accept a certain level of risk if we are not going to detain people for life.
Given the nature of Islamic radicalization, I'm afraid this is true. Islamic radicals are far too often beyond saving.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 12:19 AM   #11
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
It is worth remembering the caliphate was far more religiously tolerant than Europe. There was a widespread Jewish population under the caliphate (and christian), pogroms and the holocaust were a European / Christian / liberal democratic phenomenon.
It is worth remembring the Caliphate allowed the Jews and Christians to live under their yoke primarily as a way to extract additional taxes for its own coffers. It was more profitable for Caliphs to collect the Jitzya tax than it was to convert the unbelievers to Islam. That's why conversion to Islam was discouraged for much of the Caliphate, not some inherent tolerance to non-believers built into Islam.

Modern wannabe liberals fail at basic fact checking and use this as evidence of Islamic tolerance. It is not, it is evidence of Islamic convenience. This is best seen in India, where Hindus were treated in a similar fashion - even though their faith is not Abrahamic and they worship multiple gods.

It is also worth remembering the West is not what it was in 1600. Neither is Islamic caliphate I suppose but that went the other way.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 3rd December 2019 at 01:29 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 04:26 AM   #12
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I do not know the extent to which the Taliban sheltered Al Quaeda, nor do I know the extent of the Taliban's knowledge of the actions of Al Quaeda outside of Afghanistan. It seems generally accepted that the Taliban new nothing of 9/11 until after the event.
It is also generally accepted the Taliban shielded Osama bin Laden and gave him shelter for about five years prior to 9/11, even though he was sought after by the US for the 1993 WTC bombing. OBL was also implicated in 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, yet the Taliban still sheltered him.

The Taliban knew full well who OBL was, who was he attacking and how. They knew all of this and still gave him shelter even after 9/11. They didn't even arrest him or anything. It's not like OBL first became notorious with 9/11, that was just the point where the USA finally said "enough".

Now somehow wannabe liberals pretend the chase for OBL was all about 9/11 and nothing else. That's just nonsense. He was a known international terrorist for eight years at that point.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 3rd December 2019 at 05:49 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:35 AM   #13
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,286
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
It is also generally accepted the Taliban shielded Osama bin Laden and gave him shelter for about five years prior to 9/11, even though he was sought after by the US for the 1993 WTC bombing. OBL was also implicated in 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, yet the Taliban still sheltered him.

The Taliban knew full well who OBL was, who was he attacking and how. They knew all of this and still gave him shelter even after 9/11. They didn't even arrest him or anything. It's not like OBL first became notorious with 9/11, that was just the point where the USA finally said "enough".

Now somehow wannabe liberals pretend the chase for OBL was all about 9/11 and nothing else. That's just nonsense. He was a known international terrorist for eight years at that point.

McHrozni
OBL only arrived in Afghanistan in 1996/7. The Taliban only came to power in 1996. The first criminal charges against OBL were raised in 1998. I am not sure how long after 1998 attempts were made to 'extradite' OBL. But if there was insufficient evidence for the US with its huge intelligence services to indict OBL before 1998 it is unreasonable to suspect a poorly organised revolutionary government in a third world country to know this. It is worth remembering that OBL denied any participation in 9/11 initially, and there are many postings on this site from people who still do not believe OBL was responsible. The US never provided the Taliban with any evidence of OBL involvement. The Taliban did offer to put OBL on trial if the US had evidence of his involvement.

From Wikipedia;
'
Quote:
They (Taliban) did however offer to try him before an Islamic court if evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 attacks was provided. It was not until eight days after the bombing of Afghanistan began in October 2001 that the Taliban finally did offer to turn over Osama bin Laden to a third-party country for trial in return for the United States ending the bombing. This offer was rejected by President Bush stating that this was no longer negotiable, with Bush responding "there's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty."
'

We all know extradition cases take years. The US wanted to cut short due process. The reality is the US entirely understandably wanted to lash out and kill people in revenge. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan just happened to be the victims of that anger. A little more patience and OBL could have been in US hands before the end of 2001. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives would be saved.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 07:59 AM   #14
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,574
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
. The Taliban did offer to put OBL on trial if the US had evidence of his involvement.

From Wikipedia;
''

We all know extradition cases take years. The US wanted to cut short due process. The reality is the US entirely understandably wanted to lash out and kill people in revenge. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan just happened to be the victims of that anger. A little more patience and OBL could have been in US hands before the end of 2001. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives would be saved.
This makes some huge assumptions:
- that the taliban were making an honest offer, rather than just trying to string the USA along until either US anger had cooled or the world had moved on, making direct action impossible.
- that the talibans hardline court would have considered what he did a crime, or that it was permissible to extradite him
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 10:01 AM   #15
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
OBL only arrived in Afghanistan in 1996/7. The Taliban only came to power in 1996. The first criminal charges against OBL were raised in 1998. I am not sure how long after 1998 attempts were made to 'extradite' OBL. But if there was insufficient evidence for the US with its huge intelligence services to indict OBL before 1998 it is unreasonable to suspect a poorly organised revolutionary government in a third world country to know this. It is worth remembering that OBL denied any participation in 9/11 initially, and there are many postings on this site from people who still do not believe OBL was responsible. The US never provided the Taliban with any evidence of OBL involvement. The Taliban did offer to put OBL on trial if the US had evidence of his involvement.
It was more of "provide all the evidence and expose all your informants and we'll see what we can do". Taliban also offered to try OBL before an Islamic 'court' that would be a spectacle to further fan the flames of a clash of civilizations.

To think someone could take the offer seriously is beyond me.a

Quote:
We all know extradition cases take years. The US wanted to cut short due process. The reality is the US entirely understandably wanted to lash out and kill people in revenge. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan just happened to be the victims of that anger. A little more patience and OBL could have been in US hands before the end of 2001. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives would be saved.
This assumes good faith by an organization that helped OBL for years while he continued his campaign of terror. Pardon, postulates.
If Taliban had honest intentions and good faith they would have arrested OBL immediately and asked for US investigators to come to Kabul and meet with theirs to work things out.

This was just BS for the weak minded.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 3rd December 2019 at 10:08 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 02:07 PM   #16
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,672
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
It is worth remembering that OBL denied any participation in 9/11 initially, and there are many postings on this site from people who still do not believe OBL was responsible. The US never provided the Taliban with any evidence of OBL involvement. The Taliban did offer to put OBL on trial if the US had evidence of his involvement.
The US had already launched Tomahawk cruise missiles against Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan years before this, as a response to the 1998 Embassy bombings. After that attack UN sanctions were placed on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, specifically ordering declaring that:

Quote:
The Taliban must not allow territory under its control to be used for terrorist training.
The Taliban must turn over Osama bin Laden to the appropriate authorities.
All countries must deny flight permission to all Taliban operated aircraft.
All countries must freeze all financial resources that could benefit the Taliban.
All countries must report back within 30 days on what measures they had taken.
You can't seriously argue that they were somehow oblivious to this and that they couldn't have know that he was engaged in terrorism until after 9/11. How ******* stupid do you think they are?
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

Last edited by Arcade22; 3rd December 2019 at 02:15 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:10 PM   #17
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,131
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
The US had already launched Tomahawk cruise missiles against Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan years before this, as a response to the 1998 Embassy bombings. After that attack UN sanctions were placed on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, specifically ordering declaring that:



You can't seriously argue that they were somehow oblivious to this and that they couldn't have know that he was engaged in terrorism until after 9/11. How ******* stupid do you think they are?
Or if they knew, they ignored it.
Fact is, Al Qaida apparently operated as what in the Mafia is known as "'Muscle"for the Taliaban.
and the restrictions the Taliaban placed on Al Qaida was just for foreign comsumpition.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:12 PM   #18
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,131
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
OBL only arrived in Afghanistan in 1996/7. The Taliban only came to power in 1996. The first criminal charges against OBL were raised in 1998. I am not sure how long after 1998 attempts were made to 'extradite' OBL. But if there was insufficient evidence for the US with its huge intelligence services to indict OBL before 1998 it is unreasonable to suspect a poorly organised revolutionary government in a third world country to know this. It is worth remembering that OBL denied any participation in 9/11 initially, and there are many postings on this site from people who still do not believe OBL was responsible. The US never provided the Taliban with any evidence of OBL involvement. The Taliban did offer to put OBL on trial if the US had evidence of his involvement.

From Wikipedia;
''

We all know extradition cases take years. The US wanted to cut short due process. The reality is the US entirely understandably wanted to lash out and kill people in revenge. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan just happened to be the victims of that anger. A little more patience and OBL could have been in US hands before the end of 2001. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives would be saved.
But which would have left Al Qaida's network intact and a menace. The idea that there was a peaceful solution to Al Qaida is total nonsense.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 10:23 PM   #19
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,853
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I am certainly not praising "freedom of speech" in the Islamic world
Then why the hell did you list freedom of speech as one of their grievances against us?

Quote:
I am not aware of any expansionist conquest by an Islamic nation nowadays, but I know (or I believe I know) Israel is stealing more land every month to the Palestinians with "barbaric" U.S. support.
Turkey is invading Syria. ISIS was conquering land in both Syria and Iraq. Most Islamic nations are currently too weak to engage in wars of conquest, but what do you think is going on with groups like Boko Harem? They're trying to engage in a war of conquest.

And as for Israel, they're just a scapegoat for the middle east's problems. Muslim-on-muslim violence kills and displaces far more people than anything going on in the West Bank.

Quote:
I suspect Qutb was a somewhat more complex intellectual than what you are describing
The complexity of his beliefs aren't the issue here. The point is that his beliefs are fundamentally religious in nature, and inherently in conflict with western liberalism. It doesn't matter how nuanced that conflict is, the point is we cannot avoid it without abandoning our core values.

Quote:
You are sounding very radical yourself (do you have a brother in some Islamic country? Sorry, this was just a stupid joke).
Yeah, that is a stupid joke. Not because it's offensive, but because it doesn't make sense. Don't bother explaining, I doubt it would be funny even if I understood it.

Quote:
When ISIS claimed responsibility for the London bridge attack, they did not say "Make no mistake about it, we are not killing you because of what you do, we are killing you because of what YOU ARE".
They said:
Quote:
... the attack was made in response to Islamic State calls to target countries that have been part of a coalition fighting the jihadist group.
That coalition includes Islamic countries. Go figure. And what did you expect them to say? They want us to stop attacking them. That doesn't mean that they would actually play nice if we did. You've got to be pretty damned gullible to believe something like that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 01:10 AM   #20
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Then why the hell did you list freedom of speech as one of their grievances against us?
I don't think the Islamic State is blaming the U.S. or the West because of its lack of freedom of speech, but I do. For example, I recently wrote, on this Western forum, several posts criticizing Western policy, which were summarily sent to the Abandon All Hope section of this forum. No explanation or warning were given ("ModBox" or anything). If I recollect correctly, at the beginning of my time on this forum, somebody compared me to Jesus in a thread devoted to a telepathy test. This post was deemed so ridiculous by the so-called moderators that it was also sent to AAH. Censorship ... . In April 1999, Nato (probably the U.S., the missile was found to be American) bombed the headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia. No less than 16 people died, and 16 were injured. Of course, for the U.S., this is basically business as usual.
Quote:
Amnesty International stated that the NATO bombing was a war crime,[1] and Noam Chomsky views it as an act of terrorism.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_b...a_headquarters)
Quote:
Turkey is invading Syria.
It seems to me that is illegal, imperialist behavior, and that Turkey shouldn't be doing that. However, this is not an expansionist conquest (the official border of Turkey doesn't change, even for Turkish authorities themselves). Turkey tries to justify this occupation by arguing there is a Kurdish terrorist threat, I don't think this argument is credible though, not heard much of Kurdish terrorism in Turkey lately.
Quote:
Turkish occupation of northern Syria
... Though these areas nominally acknowledge a government affiliated with the Syrian opposition, they factually constitute a separate proto-state[11] under the dual authority of decentralized native local councils and Turkish military administration.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkis...northern_Syria).

Quote:
ISIS was conquering land in both Syria and Iraq.
This was probably a reaction to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Interestingly, the Iraq-Syria border was decided by France and the UK in 1920 and 1923:
Quote:
It was first defined in the 1920–23 Paulet–Newcombe Agreement, as an amendment to what had been designated the A zone in the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93Syria_border).
If you were a Muslim living in Syria or Iraq, would you find that normal? Not sure about that.
Quote:
Most Islamic nations are currently too weak to engage in wars of conquest, but what do you think is going on with groups like Boko Harem? They're trying to engage in a war of conquest.
I don't think Boko Haram is a good organization for the people living in areas they still control. However, these Islamic insurgencies have to be understood in a context of an expansionist, violent and arrogant West, perhaps as a kind of reaction. For this reason, I believe they should be dealt with in a more gentle way than just massive military repression. For example, favor dialogue, try to convince them of the interest of democracy and human rights, of vaccinating children and so on, and even let them control some limited territory to keep them happy (and therefore less dangerous). If some people want to believe the Earth is flat, they should have this right, even if it is very stupid.
Quote:
And as for Israel, they're just a scapegoat for the middle east's problems.
The suffering because of the Gaza Strip blockade (and because of the illegal occupation of Eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank) is real, not imaginary. And we should also not forget those living under rocket fire (from Gaza) in Southern Israel. Also, these occupations and blockade send a very toxic message throughout the world: that, if you have more war planes and more bombs, you can do whatever you like. They probably partly explain why Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, for example.
Quote:
The complexity of his beliefs aren't the issue here. The point is that his beliefs are fundamentally religious in nature, and inherently in conflict with western liberalism. It doesn't matter how nuanced that conflict is, the point is we cannot avoid it without abandoning our core values.
You seem to be saying here that war is unavoidable. I don't think this is true, and you sound like a Western jihadist yourself. Peace with Muslims can be achieved (in my opinion) by lifting "sanctions", stopping military operations against them, and by ordering Israel to comply with international law, instead of pursuing an expansionist agenda. In other words, by doing exactly the opposite of what Donald Trump gets up for every morning.

Last edited by Michel H; 4th December 2019 at 02:27 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 01:40 AM   #21
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Censorship ... . In April 1999, Nato (probably the U.S., the missile was found to be American) bombed the headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia. No less than 16 people died, and 16 were injured. Of course, for the U.S., this is basically business as usual.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_b...a_headquarters)
Do cite what the court said please.

Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable ... NATO’s targeting of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milošević in power.
(from your link)

Chomsky considers anything the West does as terrorism or equivalent and has a credibility score of zero. Amnesty International also has their own share of problems and should not always be taken at face value.

Furthermore this had nothing to do with censorship. It was an attack on an enemy communications structure during wartime, that also broadcast war propaganda to civilians.

Quote:
It seems to me that is illegal, imperialist behavior, and that Turkey shouldn't be doing that. However, this is not an expansionist conquest (the official border of Turkey doesn't change, even for Turkish authorities themselves). Turkey tries to justify this occupation by arguing there is a Kurdish terrorist threat, I don't think this argument is credible though, not heard much of Kurdish terrorism in Turkey lately.
Do you use the same standard for US forces in Iraq?

Probably not.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 4th December 2019 at 02:03 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 02:03 AM   #22
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
But which would have left Al Qaida's network intact and a menace. The idea that there was a peaceful solution to Al Qaida is total nonsense.
Indeed. OBL was just the visible part of the problem that was nurtured in Afghanistan by the Taliban.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 02:22 AM   #23
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Do you use the same standard for US forces in Iraq?

Probably not.
Yes, of course, Turkey and the U.S. should obey the same very strict standards of respect of sovereignty of other countries, and should comply with the U.N. Charter. But what the U.S. did in Iraq was a lot worse (massive invasion for regime change).

Last edited by Michel H; 4th December 2019 at 02:56 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 02:54 AM   #24
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Yes, of course, Turkey and the U.S. should obey the same very strict standards of respect of sovereignty of other countries, and should comply with the U.S. Charter. But what the U.S. did in Iraq was a lot worse (massive invasion for regime change).
And not an imperial conquest that resulted in occupation? Cool, I agree with that.

Incidentally, does the same standard also apply to Russian troops in Ukraine?

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 03:08 AM   #25
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
And not an imperial conquest that resulted in occupation? Cool, I agree with that.

Incidentally, does the same standard also apply to Russian troops in Ukraine?

McHrozni
Not quite, I think, the situation in Eastern Ukraine is rather different. First of all, there are officially no Russian troops in Ukraine. Secondly, many people in Donbass speak Russian, like and feel close to Russia, and, in this case, democracy and right to self-determination should be considered and play an important role, in my opinion (these people feel oppressed and persecuted by the central government in Kiev, I think).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 03:36 AM   #26
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Not quite, I think, the situation in Eastern Ukraine is rather different. First of all, there are officially no Russian troops in Ukraine.
Well, not carrying your definition openly IS different, just not in the way you might want to see it. Such troops are not protected by the Geneva convention, for one.

Quote:
Secondly, many people in Donbass speak Russian, like and feel close to Russia, and, in this case, democracy and right to self-determination should be considered and play an important role, in my opinion (these people feel oppressed and persecuted by the central government in Kiev, I think).
Ukrainian president also speaks Russian as his mother languague. He's also a Jew and therefore an obvious candidate for a Russia-hating Nazi who will persecute Russians.

I guess.

How do you feel about Russian presence in Chechnya?

There's a reason why I'm asking these questions as a progerssion

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 04:24 AM   #27
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Well, not carrying your definition openly IS different, just not in the way you might want to see it. Such troops are not protected by the Geneva convention, for one.



Ukrainian president also speaks Russian as his mother languague. He's also a Jew and therefore an obvious candidate for a Russia-hating Nazi who will persecute Russians.

I guess.

How do you feel about Russian presence in Chechnya?

There's a reason why I'm asking these questions as a progerssion

McHrozni
Zelensky speaks Russian, but not as his first language, I think. He is a Jew, nothing wrong about that, freedom of religion, respect for all.
I would be a little bit more critical about Russia's actions in Chechnya, although this might be a difficult situation for them, I suspect a lack of democracy and too much cult of personality for the Chechen leader.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 04:44 AM   #28
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Zelensky speaks Russian, but not as his first language, I think. He is a Jew, nothing wrong about that, freedom of religion, respect for all.
Just about all Ukrainians speak Russian, Zelensky speaks it as his mother tongue and Ukrainian as second.

I'm asking because the Donbass rebels supposedly fight against the Nazis that took over Ukraine and will kill all Russians in the country. I mean, the coutnry elected a Russian Jew as their president, I daresay he might not be a Russians-hating Nazi.

Quote:
I would be a little bit more critical about Russia's actions in Chechnya, although this might be a difficult situation for them, I suspect a lack of democracy and too much cult of personality for the Chechen leader.
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Yes, of course, Turkey and the U.S. should obey the same very strict standards of respect of sovereignty of other countries, and should comply with the U.N. Charter. But what the U.S. did in Iraq was a lot worse (massive invasion for regime change).
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Not quite, I think, the situation in Eastern Ukraine is rather different. First of all, there are officially no Russian troops in Ukraine. Secondly, many people in Donbass speak Russian, like and feel close to Russia, and, in this case, democracy and right to self-determination should be considered and play an important role, in my opinion (these people feel oppressed and persecuted by the central government in Kiev, I think).
Your positions are as shifting as the waves on the ocean then. Your support is based solely on who does the deed and not embedded in law or principles.
TL,DR of your viewpoints: Russia good, others bad.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 05:01 AM   #29
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
... your viewpoints: Russia good, others bad.

McHrozni
That's not what I said in my post #27. If I were to eat in a restaurant in Moscow, and if the food tastes strange, I would beware.

Last edited by Michel H; 4th December 2019 at 05:02 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 03:09 PM   #30
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,131
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Indeed. OBL was just the visible part of the problem that was nurtured in Afghanistan by the Taliban.

McHrozni
It was a simple arrangement. The Taliaban gave Al Qaida a base for operations, in return Al Qaida did hits on the Taliabans internal foes.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 11:49 PM   #31
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
It was a simple arrangement. The Taliaban gave Al Qaida a base for operations, in return Al Qaida did hits on the Taliabans internal foes.
Yup. Nothing fancy, TBH.

Also nothing that could be solved by putting OBL on trial, regardless of the outcome. The Taliban opted to fight the entire western world and left a trail of corpses in their wake. Now wannabe liberals scold the western world for fighting back.

It reminds me of Flat Earth conspiratards.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 07:38 AM   #32
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Yup. Nothing fancy, TBH.

Also nothing that could be solved by putting OBL on trial, regardless of the outcome. The Taliban opted to fight the entire western world and left a trail of corpses in their wake. Now wannabe liberals scold the western world for fighting back.

It reminds me of Flat Earth conspiratards.

McHrozni
CNBC reported in November 2018 that the U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan had cost American taxpayers $5.9 trillion since they began in 2001.
Quote:
The report, from Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, also finds that more than 480,000 people have died as a direct result of fighting. Over 244,000 civilians have been killed. Another 10 million people have been displaced due to violence. ...

It breaks down like this, according to Crawford and the report:

Total U.S. war-related spending through fiscal year 2019 is $4.9 trillion.
The other $1 trillion reflects estimates for the cost of health care for post-9/11 veterans.
...
What’s more, longer wars will also increase the number of service members who will ultimately claim veterans benefits and disability payments.
That huge amount of money could have been used to build solar, wind and safe nuclear power plants to help stop climate change and provide clean and affordable energy, for example. Or help the poor, perhaps even a member of this forum on social security and currently fighting for his life in a Thai hospital:
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Did I miss an announcement ?

I haven't seen Foolmewunz around these parts for some considerable time.
...
Is he OK ?
Originally Posted by erlando View Post
https://www.gofundme.com/f/supportin...ly-in-thailand

Thank you for your effort on this. You are very obviously a very caring person.
In Afghanistan, there is a long-running and deadly Taliban insurgency against the perceived invaders. The democratic, NATO supported government controls only about 56% of Afghan districts: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/in...083528213.html .

Iraq has been partly destroyed and impoverished by the war (after the sanctions), particularly Mosul, people are protesting and getting killed.

Iran too is impoverished by U.S. sanctions. There too, people are protesting and getting killed. In Palestine, nothing is solved, many people are unhappy, they feel they are being treated unfairly.

After 9/11, it would have been possible to make and keep U.S. citizens safe by ordering Israel to stay within its legal borders, and by lifting sanctions on Afghanistan and Iraq (and possibly other countries). Putting Osama bin Laden on trial before an "Islamic Court" in Afghanistan could have been useful to reassure the American public.

Last edited by Michel H; 5th December 2019 at 09:11 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 08:41 AM   #33
rockysmith76
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

After 9/11, it would have been possible to make and keep U.S. citizens safe by ordering Israel to stay within its legal borders, and by lifting sanctions on Afghanistan and Iraq (and possibly other countries). Putting Osama bin Laden on trial before an "Islamic Court" in Afghanistan could have been useful to reassure the American public.
Thats called appeasement and it doesn't work.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 09:12 AM   #34
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,103
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
In Afghanistan, there is a long-running and deadly Taliban insurgency against the perceived invaders. The democratic, NATO supported government controls about 56% of Afghan districts: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/in...083528213.html .
I donít see how the US had much choice but to go to Afghanistan. The subsequent nation building was probability doomed to fail though. The US military is bad at working with locals to begin with, but even if they were better at it I think the local tribal leaders would have taken the more pragmatic approach and sided with the Taliban as soon as US/Nato troops went home.

At the end of the day tribal leaders side with the Taliban because the Taliban is there and the US/NATO is not. It has little to do with who they prefer, itís about who is the immanent threat they need to appease.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

Iraq has been partly destroyed and impoverished by the war (after the sanctions), particularly Mosul,.
The Iraq war was a stupid. From the US perspective, the optimal strategic situation in Iraq was always a mostly secular dictatorship. Overthrowing just such a dictatorship and trying to bring freedom and democracy to people with very different underlying beliefs that tend strongly towards religious fanaticism was never going to end well from a US perspective.

This does not imply that the underlying religious fanaticism was created by the US.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Iran too is impoverished by U.S. sanctions. There too, people are protesting and getting killed. In Palestine, nothing is solved, many people are unhappy, they feel they are being treated unfairly.

Iran is more complicated then Iraq IMO but targeting it post 9/11 was still a huge strategic blunder. Iran, however was actively at war with Al Qaida and the Taliban and there was a growing grass roots movement towards more western style thought on many issues. Heating up the rhetoric and trying to force political change gave conservative elements the opportunity to snuff out the positive changes that were already in progress.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

After 9/11, it would have been possible to make and keep U.S. citizens safe by ordering Israel to stay within its legal borders, and by lifting sanctions on Afghanistan and Iraq (and possibly other countries).
Not a chance. To the vast majority of Muslims Israel making annexing small amounts of land is maternal and makes no difference at all to their own lives. Itís an excuse for hatred not the cause of it. Even for Palestinians themselves, a little bit of land most have never seen in person isnít what they really want. Wrt Israel I find it highly unlikely that anything short of genocide would suffice for either group and Israel ďbehaving differentlyĒ isnít going to change this.

Israel needs to stop expanding settlements and needs to treat Palestinians on Itís border MUCH better than it currently does but itís naÔve to the point of stupid to think this will change anything wrt Palestinian attacks against Israel
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 10:06 AM   #35
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Thats called appeasement and it doesn't work.
As far as I know, appeasement works better than demonizing your opponents.

In September 1939, the British government said that it had seen enough of Adolf Hitler's expansionist policies, and decided to declare war, even though Germany had not attacked Britain, and was actually seeking peace with the British. Hitler had (brutally) attacked Poland two days before mostly to unify Germany, because East Prussia was then separated from the rest of Germany by the Polish Corridor, see (if necessary) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor , https://www.britannica.com/place/Polish-Corridor.

Six years later, had this war policy "worked"? Of course, Hitler was dead. But about 60 million had died too, many millions were injured, economies were devastated, still nowadays there are still unexploded ordnances from this conflict, and I am not convinced the world has really learnt and drawn the right conclusions from this war (and this is perhaps the most terrible thing of all: not having learnt from your mistakes).

If you study American psychology, it is clear to me they are constantly trying to repeat Word War II, perceived as a great and major success from their point of view. However, I don't view 60 million deaths as a great success.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 10:27 AM   #36
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Israel needs to stop expanding settlements and needs to treat Palestinians on Itís border MUCH better than it currently does but itís naÔve to the point of stupid to think this will change anything wrt Palestinian attacks against Israel
If Israel decides, perhaps with a new government supported by Arab parties, to freeze all settlements, this will probably make Palestinians less angry, and reduce the risk of Palestinian attacks. However, for a true and final solution, Israel would need to evacuate all illegally occupied land, in my opinion (unless it manages to buy some land legally, and to sign a new peace treaty changing borders). I don't know how (un)likely this is though. The about 700,000 settlers, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, could, however, remain where they live now, and even retain their Israeli citizenship while getting Palestinian residency. When you look at the problem in this way, it doesn't seem that hard.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 11:13 AM   #37
rockysmith76
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
As far as I know, appeasement works better than demonizing your opponents.

In September 1939, the British government said that it had seen enough of Adolf Hitler's expansionist policies, and decided to declare war, even though Germany had not attacked Britain, and was actually seeking peace with the British. Hitler had (brutally) attacked Poland two days before mostly to unify Germany, because East Prussia was then separated from the rest of Germany by the Polish Corridor, see (if necessary) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor , https://www.britannica.com/place/Polish-Corridor.

Six years later, had this war policy "worked"? Of course, Hitler was dead. But about 60 million had died too, many millions were injured, economies were devastated, still nowadays there are still unexploded ordnances from this conflict, and I am not convinced the world has really learnt and drawn the right conclusions from this war (and this is perhaps the most terrible thing of all: not having learnt from your mistakes).

If you study American psychology, it is clear to me they are constantly trying to repeat Word War II, perceived as a great and major success from their point of view. However, I don't view 60 million deaths as a great success.
So this genius just used appeasement to justify Nazism... Hitler bad, Hitler dead, problem solved. Would all those Jews have survived if Adolph was all happy and appeased?
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 11:15 AM   #38
rockysmith76
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If Israel decides, perhaps with a new government supported by Arab parties, to freeze all settlements, this will probably make Palestinians less angry, and reduce the risk of Palestinian attacks. However, for a true and final solution, Israel would need to evacuate all illegally occupied land, in my opinion (unless it manages to buy some land legally, and to sign a new peace treaty changing borders). I don't know how (un)likely this is though. The about 700,000 settlers, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, could, however, remain where they live now, and even retain their Israeli citizenship while getting Palestinian residency. When you look at the problem in this way, it doesn't seem that hard.
They resent the fact that Infidel Outsiders divied up their land after WW II and and they now live under percieved Occupied rule, but the grievances are older and your take on all of this seems dangerously naive.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 12:02 PM   #39
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
So this genius just used appeasement to justify Nazism... Hitler bad, Hitler dead, problem solved. Would all those Jews have survived if Adolph was all happy and appeased?
It is indeed quite possible that many Jews would have survived if the UK and France had not declared war to Germany in 1939. In January 1939, Hitler said before the German Reichstag:
Quote:
If international finance Jewry in and outside Europe succeeds in plunging the peoples into another world war, then the end result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and the consequent victory of Jewry but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
(https://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dacha...rSpeeches.html)
This is a video of that speech:
https://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...people-applaud.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 12:06 PM   #40
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
They resent the fact that Infidel Outsiders divied up their land after WW II and and they now live under percieved Occupied rule, but the grievances are older and your take on all of this seems dangerously naive.
I don't think it's naive, because it is based on very solid international law, and Security Council resolutions.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.