What motivated the 9/11 hijackers?

[dannyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And yet, you're the one who is minimizing terrorist attacks aimed specifically at civilian populations by groups who aspire to genocide.



I thought you wanted to talk about the 9/11 hijackers. Funny, you're no longer even mentioning them in a thread you started on the topic. If you wanted to start a thread about Jews Zionists, you should have titled your thread appropriately.



Each of my claims? I don't think you addressed any of my claims.



That sounds an awful lot like an excuse for not having a response.



I'm not familiar with Finkelstein, but I know enough about Chomsky (for example, his shameful apologetics for real genocide in Cambodia and his false accusations of genocide in Afghanistan) to not trust your recommendations if you think he's a good source. And what makes you think that *I* have the time to read a book on your recommendation when you don't have the time to address any of my points?



Your ideas sound more akin to "peace for our time".

You seem to follow the propagandistic view of what 'they' do is terrorism and 'we' do is counter terrorism. If bulldozing someone's house or bombing them because they voted the 'wrong' way isn't a form of terrorism, what is?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dannyb

You seem to follow the propagandistic view of what 'they' do is terrorism and 'we' do is counter terrorism. If bulldozing someone's house or bombing them because they voted the 'wrong' way isn't a form of terrorism, what is?

Nobody got their house bulldozed or got bombed because of the way they voted. That isn't even an issue of labels, that's just false. So don't lecture me about propaganda when you're telling outright lies.

But it's quite telling that you're still just talking about Israel, and not the supposed topic of this thread. It makes me wonder if you ever actually cared about the answer to your original question. It certainly doesn't look like it.

[dannyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Nobody got their house bulldozed or got bombed because of the way they voted. That isn't even an issue of labels, that's just false. So don't lecture me about propaganda when you're telling outright lies.

But it's quite telling that you're still just talking about Israel, and not the supposed topic of this thread. It makes me wonder if you ever actually cared about the answer to your original question. It certainly doesn't look like it.

Not the bulldozing but the bombing certainly. The bulldozing is for the ideological reasons previously stated.

I certainly do care about the original answer which is why we are having this discussion. I think the interests of elite groups in America put its innocent citizens in danger. In the same way right wing groups in Israel are putting the country's existence in danger, in the long term, by continuing their current policies.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dannyb

Not the bulldozing but the bombing certainly. The bulldozing is for the ideological reasons previously stated.

No it isn't. That's a flat-out lie.

Quote:

I certainly do care about the original answer which is why we are having this discussion.

But we aren't discussing your original question, or the answer to it.

Quote:

I think the interests of elite groups in America put its innocent citizens in danger.

Quite so: the left-wing elite in this country has pushed policies of appeasement which have endangered us all.

Quote:

In the same way right wing groups in Israel are putting the country's existence in danger, in the long term, by continuing their current policies.

You keep asserting that, but cannot actually answer arguments which demonstrate that it's not true. In fact, you show no interest in even addressing such arguments. All you're doing now is leveling accusations. False accusations, it should be noted. Which makes you a liar.

[dannyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No it isn't. That's a flat-out lie.



But we aren't discussing your original question, or the answer to it.



Quite so: the left-wing elite in this country has pushed policies of appeasement which have endangered us all.



You keep asserting that, but cannot actually answer arguments which demonstrate that it's not true. In fact, you show no interest in even addressing such arguments. All you're doing now is leveling accusations. False accusations, it should be noted. Which makes you a liar.

America doesn't really have a left wing, and certainly not one in government.

It follows the simple logic that if there is enough provocation on the Israeli side then it will have negative effects in the future. Polls of regular citizens of Arab countries show they still see the Palestinian issue as the main problem in the region. Putting off a satisfactory settlement can only be a bad thing. And this is recognised by Israeli citizens who, besides the oppression, are tired of their militaristic stance consuming so much of their GDP at the expense of public services. Hence the protests in Tel Aviv last year.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dannyb

It follows the simple logic that if there is enough provocation on the Israeli side then it will have negative effects in the future.

Their very existence is a provocation to those who want to commit genocide.

Quote:

Polls of regular citizens of Arab countries show they still see the Palestinian issue as the main problem in the region.

Of course they do. Their corrupt leaders are constantly telling them that through a vile stream of never-ending hate, much of it based on blood libels. What Israel actually does is pretty much beside the point: arab despots need a scapegoat, and they will make Israel that scapegoat no matter what it does. And the Islamists will willingly play along out of religious hatred.

Quote:

Putting off a satisfactory settlement can only be a bad thing.

No satisfactory settlement is possible with an enemy that wants to kill you all. There will never be peace between Israel and the arabs until the arabs give up that goal, and they will never give up that goal until they conclude that they have more to lose by continuing hostilities. But logically (you're a big fan of that) they cannot be driven to reach this conclusion without doing things which will upset them, a lot. That is the reality of war. It is a tragic reality, but willfully ignoring it in the vain hope that everyone can just get along if those jews would just behave will only bring more death and suffering. Israel is choosing the least violent path they have available to them to try to force the arab's hands. The alternatives are never-ending low-intensity war, or total war.

When people tell you that they want to kill all the jews, you should believe them. For some reason, you don't.

Quote:

And this is recognised by Israeli citizens who, besides the oppression, are tired of their militaristic stance consuming so much of their GDP at the expense of public services. Hence the protests in Tel Aviv last year.

Ever heard the term oikophobia? You aren't the only naive appeaser of evil.

[dannyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Their very existence is a provocation to those who want to commit genocide.



Of course they do. Their corrupt leaders are constantly telling them that through a vile stream of never-ending hate, much of it based on blood libels. What Israel actually does is pretty much beside the point: arab despots need a scapegoat, and they will make Israel that scapegoat no matter what it does. And the Islamists will willingly play along out of religious hatred.



No satisfactory settlement is possible with an enemy that wants to kill you all. There will never be peace between Israel and the arabs until the arabs give up that goal, and they will never give up that goal until they conclude that they have more to lose by continuing hostilities. But logically (you're a big fan of that) they cannot be driven to reach this conclusion without doing things which will upset them, a lot. That is the reality of war. It is a tragic reality, but willfully ignoring it in the vain hope that everyone can just get along if those jews would just behave will only bring more death and suffering. Israel is choosing the least violent path they have available to them to try to force the arab's hands. The alternatives are never-ending low-intensity war, or total war.

When people tell you that they want to kill all the jews, you should believe them. For some reason, you don't.



Ever heard the term oikophobia? You aren't the only naive appeaser of evil.

I tend to steer clear of the word evil in general. As I've said to you previously though, Israel is following its own ideological zeal in wanting to form a Greater Israel. They are attempting to do this by forced eviction and building a wall that has been comprehensively ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice.

Israel has done more to avoid peace than the incompetent PLO by pretending they are somehow 'compromising' by 'agreeing' to give back part of something that isn't rightfully theirs - as recognised by an overwhelming majority of the international community if you look at General Assembly votes on the issue.

So, to bring this back to the original question, why do you think America was chosen as the target for the 9/11 attacks if it wasn't for its foreign policies? If it was simply a matter of it being a decadent country (in the view of the likes of Sayyid Qutb) why choose America and not another country. Like, say, the Netherlands with its legalised prostitution, drugs, etc?

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Too bad Scheuer is wrong, and that this really is a big part of the problem. Hell, Al Qaeda kills far more muslims than Americans. The whole "foreign policy" excuse doesn't illuminate that little fact, does it?

It does. Al Qaeda tends to kill Muslims who belong to groups supported by the USA.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dannyb

I tend to steer clear of the word evil in general.

That's no surprise. It's an uncomfortable word for some, because it forces them to confront uncomfortable truths. It's harder to engage in the sort of moral relativism you seem enamored of once you admit that true evil exists.

Quote:

As I've said to you previously though, Israel is following its own ideological zeal in wanting to form a Greater Israel. They are attempting to do this by forced eviction and building a wall that has been comprehensively ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice.

The ICJ has no jurisdiction, and your argument makes no sense. If you want to own a bunch of land, dividing that land with a wall doesn't help you. A wall only lets you lay claim to land on your side of it. So you've refuted your own argument.

Quote:

Israel has done more to avoid peace than the incompetent PLO

That's a laughable assertion.

Quote:

by pretending they are somehow 'compromising' by 'agreeing' to give back part of something that isn't rightfully theirs

It is rightfully theirs. Ownership of land by conquest is a principle that has existed for millenia.

Quote:

as recognised by an overwhelming majority of the international community if you look at General Assembly votes on the issue.

The general assembly is dominated by the OIC. The fact that you place moral weight on their decisions says more about you than about what they decide.

Quote:

So, to bring this back to the original question, why do you think America was chosen as the target for the 9/11 attacks if it wasn't for its foreign policies?

I never said it wasn't about foreign policy. But you seem confused about both what aspects of that foreign policy are responsible, as well as what we can and should do about it. bin Laden was primarily upset that we had troops in Afghanistan. And it wasn't because there were foreign troops on Muslim soil defending those muslims against a Stalinist agressor (and make no mistake, Saddam was a Stalinist), because that's what he did in Afghanistan. No, what pissed him off was that it was infidels on the Arabian peninsula. Just let that sink in for a while: his religious hatred ran so deep that the idea that we would help defend muslims was enough for him to declare war against us. You think we can appease such a mindset. That is dangerously naive. We cannot. We can fight it, or we can surrender to it. No accommodation is possible.

Quote:

If it was simply a matter of it being a decadent country (in the view of the likes of Sayyid Qutb) why choose America and not another country.

Because we're the #1 cultural exporter of western values.

Quote:

Like, say, the Netherlands with its legalised prostitution, drugs, etc?

What, you think the Netherlands have been spared? They have not.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

It does. Al Qaeda tends to kill Muslims who belong to groups supported by the USA.

They tend to kill Muslims who don't bow down to their ideology, regardless of any affiliation with the US or any other group. Or just people who are convenient targets. Tell me: what did this boy do to earn his fate? Explain to me how his death had anything to do with US foreign policy.

[Virus]

They want to impose a religious dictatorship because they think it's the solution to centuries of cultural failure and inferiority to the West.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Virus

They want to impose a religious dictatorship because they think it's the solution to centuries of cultural failure and inferiority to the West.

very doubtfull that this is their line of "reasoning"
but i am pretty sure their line of "reasoning" is just as dumb.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The ICJ has no jurisdiction

The ICJ has jurisdiction as long as Israel wants to be a UN member.

Quote:

If you want to own a bunch of land, dividing that land with a wall doesn't help you. A wall only lets you lay claim to land on your side of it.

You would think that, but it hasn't stopped Israel from claiming parts on the other side of that wall.

Quote:

It is rightfully theirs. Ownership of land by conquest is a principle that has existed for millenia.

That is irrelevant. What matters is whether it exists as a legal principle today, and it doesn't.

Quote:

The general assembly is dominated by the OIC.

Yes, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation dominates the UN general assembly with its supermajority of 56 out 193 member states...

Quote:

What, you think the Netherlands have been spared? They have not.

I believe the topic of the thread is "9/11 hijackers". Do you have any evidence that Mohammed Bouyeri had any ties with Al Qaida? If so, I am sure the Dutch authorities would love to hear about it.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

They tend to kill Muslims who don't bow down to their ideology, regardless of any affiliation with the US or any other group. Or just people who are convenient targets.

I think it is safe to say that they are not very nice people.

Quote:

Tell me: what did this boy do to earn his fate?

Why are asking me? Seems more like a question to ask the people who did it to him.

Quote:

Explain to me how his death had anything to do with US foreign policy.

You are asking me how the US was involved in the war in Iraq? I think it is rather obvious that US foreign policy had something to do with the war in Iraq, but if you are having trouble, I suggest you consult wikipedia.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

I suggest you consult wikipedia.

As long as we're citing Wikipedia...

Originally Posted by Earthborn

The ICJ has jurisdiction as long as Israel wants to be a UN member.

Consenting to ICJ jurisdiction is not a requirement for UN membership. UN membership does not impose ICJ jurisdiction on the member nation; it only entitles the member to apply to the ICJ for adjudication if the member nation chooses to do so. No member nation can compel another member nation to submit to the ICJ against the will of that nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdi...urt_of_Justice

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

The ICJ has jurisdiction as long as Israel wants to be a UN member.

No, Earthborn, it doesn't.

Quote:

You would think that, but it hasn't stopped Israel from claiming parts on the other side of that wall.

Way to miss the point. Whatever their claims are for land on the other side, the purpose of the wall is clearly NOT to strengthen that claim or their hold on that land, because it obviously doesn't do that.

Quote:

That is irrelevant. What matters is whether it exists as a legal principle today, and it doesn't.

Wrong again. Modern legal principle still recognizes ownership by conquest. In fact, it's incorporated into the Geneva Conventions. Many countries have no claim to their current borders except by conquest.

Quote:

Yes, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation dominates the UN general assembly with its supermajority of 56 out 193 member states...

Again, way to miss the point. The OIC is by far the largest voting bloc in the general assembly. There are no other unified voting blocs of even similar size. Other countries outside the bloc will typically defer to the wishes of the OIC, because the OIC can punish dissenters within the assembly and there is no counterbalance. Without any counterbalance, the OIC's influence is far larger than their fractional size would indicate, because they're unified and the rest of the UN isn't.

Plus, antisemitism has global appeal. It always has. You can pretend that your hostility to Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism, and maybe that's even true, but it's very much part of the global attitude towards Israel.

Quote:

I believe the topic of the thread is "9/11 hijackers". Do you have any evidence that Mohammed Bouyeri had any ties with Al Qaida? If so, I am sure the Dutch authorities would love to hear about it.

You seem to think that operational divisions between people who share a common ideology and goal are somehow more important than that shared ideology and those shared goals. That too is dangerously naive. The problem was never just Al Qaeda.

The crocodile might eat you last, but it will eat you all the same.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Why are asking me? Seems more like a question to ask the people who did it to him.

I'm asking you because you asserted that Al Qaeda was killing other muslims because those muslims allied themselves with the US. I want to know how your assertion applies to that child. Evidently you don't even know.

Quote:

You are asking me how the US was involved in the war in Iraq?

No. I want to know why they killed that child. Why did they pick him. What about US foreign policy made them choose him as their victim.

You are making excuses for terrorists. I'm trying to examine whether those excuses withstand scrutiny. It appears that they do not.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Many countries have no claim to their current borders except by conquest.

Not too many countries have their claims recognised when they conquer other countries today.

Quote:

Without any counterbalance, the OIC's influence is far larger than their fractional size would indicate, because they're unified and the rest of the UN isn't.

I think you exaggerate how "unified" they are. The OIC has members who hate each other to the bone.

Quote:

You can pretend that your hostility to Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism

I'm not hostile toward Israel. Have you ever seen me say something hostile toward Israel? No, you haven't.

Quote:

but it's very much part of the global attitude towards Israel.

You won't hear me deny that.

Quote:

You seem to think that operational divisions between people who share a common ideology and goal are somehow more important than that shared ideology and those shared goals.

I think you'll have to show that they share a common ideology. There are unfortunately a lot of violent Islamist groups fighting each other, and they tend to claim to fight for very different ideologies and goals.

Quote:

That too is dangerously naive. The problem was never just Al Qaeda.

I never claimed Al Qaida was the only problem.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm asking you because you asserted that Al Qaeda was killing other muslims because those muslims allied themselves with the US.

With that I did not make an absolutist statement, I can come with at least as many exceptions as you can.

Quote:

I want to know how your assertion applies to that child.

It doesn't apply to this child.

Quote:

No. I want to know why they killed that child. Why did they pick him. What about US foreign policy made them choose him as their victim.

Nothing about US foreign policy made them choose him specifically. He was just a convenient victim.

Quote:

You are making excuses for terrorists.

Am I?

Quote:

I'm trying to examine whether those excuses withstand scrutiny.

What you should examine is your flawed judgement that they are excuses. I think you'll find that it doesn't withstand scrutiny.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Not too many countries have their claims recognised when they conquer other countries today.

Because conquests made today are magically different from conquests made earlier in history? That's illogical.

International law doesn't actually place a lot of weight on the recognition or non-recognition of one country for another. Hell, most Arab states don't recognize Israel at all. And Israel was founded by the UN.

Quote:

I think you exaggerate how "unified" they are. The OIC has members who hate each other to the bone.

Sure, they hate each other. But not nearly as much as they hate Israel. On that they have complete unity, and that's the issue we're talking about.

Quote:

I think you'll have to show that they share a common ideology. There are unfortunately a lot of violent Islamist groups fighting each other, and they tend to claim to fight for very different ideologies and goals.

They squabble for power, just like all totalitarians do. The ideological differences are actually quite narrow.

Quote:

With that I did not make an absolutist statement

If it's not an absolutist statement, then it cannot refute my argument and so was irrelevant from the start.

Quote:

Nothing about US foreign policy made them choose him specifically. He was just a convenient victim.

Exactly. They kill for many reasons. And as you yourself pointed out, they even kill each other. They won't stop killing even if we do everything they want us to do. Which we cannot afford to do anyways.

Quote:

Am I?

Yes, you are. You are placing culpability for deaths they cause on something other than them.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't. Your post confused me. I have no idea who you think the bigot trolls are.

Don't be coy. You know fine well.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Don't be coy. You know fine well.

No, I really don't. I'm also confused as to why you're calling me coy when you don't just name the trolls you were referring to.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Because conquests made today are magically different from conquests made earlier in history?

It is not magically different, it is just frowned upon more. Most countries today realise that if they allow some countries to conquer other countries, their own territories may be under threat. Conquest went out of style during a little skirmish called "World War 2" where some countries tried to take over a bunch of others in a rather unpleasant way. After that they got together, promised not to do things like that again and founded the United Nations.

Quote:

That's illogical.

It is not more or less logical then any other example of the "shifting moral zeitgeist".

Quote:

On that they have complete unity, and that's the issue we're talking about.

I don't think that is the issue we're talking about, but whatever.

Quote:

If it's not an absolutist statement, then it cannot refute my argument and so was irrelevant from the start.

It was not argument to be refuted. You asked the question whether considering US foreign policy illuminates why Al Qaida kills more Muslims than Americans. I still argue that it can; because US foreign policy favours some Muslim groups much more than others. Take for example the fight between Al Qaida and the Saudi regime; if you ignored US foreign policy it would not at all be clear how they disagree with each other. That's because they disagree on US foreign policy.

Quote:

Exactly. They kill for many reasons. And as you yourself pointed out, they even kill each other.

I don't think it is meaningful to talk about "they" as if there's a unified group opposed to "us". I think it is more useful to conceptualise this whole struggle as different factions fighting each other, and the West got caught in the middle.

Quote:

Yes, you are. You are placing culpability for deaths they cause on something other than them.

I've been on this forum for a while, and by now I think you should have noticed that I never talk about "culpability". If I can notice that you always like to interpret other's words in the worst possible way and like to accuse them of being "appeasers of evil", you should have been able to do that.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

It is not magically different, it is just frowned upon more.

Frowns have no legal significance.

Quote:

It was not argument to be refuted. You asked the question whether considering US foreign policy illuminates why Al Qaida kills more Muslims than Americans. I still argue that it can; because US foreign policy favours some Muslim groups much more than others. Take for example the fight between Al Qaida and the Saudi regime; if you ignored US foreign policy it would not at all be clear how they disagree with each other. That's because they disagree on US foreign policy.

I think you have the causality backwards. Al Qaeda would choose the same enemies and the same allies regardless of US involvement. Rather, the sort of people al Qaeda allies itself with are the kind of people the US doesn't like to support, and the kind of people al Qaeda hates are more likely to be the kind of people the US is willing to support.

Take the example I gave before: not only did they murder a child with Down syndrome who had done nothing, they use him to try to kill voters, for voting. Not for how they voted, because they didn't know. Just for voting at all. Whether they voted for anti-US candidates or pro-US candidates, it didn't matter: al Qaeda was violently opposed to any voting, and would kill other muslims just to make the point.

Quote:

I've been on this forum for a while, and by now I think you should have noticed that I never talk about "culpability".

That's a shame, because terrorists are very much culpable for their crimes. Refusing to assign them culpability is not a lot better than assigning culpability elsewhere.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Bigot trolls posting together again while some real discussion gets going and everyone ignores them. I love it.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

If you think the plight of the Palestinians motivated them, you are deluded.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't. Your post confused me. I have no idea who you think the bigot trolls are.

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Don't be coy. You know fine well.

So, you're a bigot troll then?

Just guessing, since you refuse to answer a simple question, which you brought up. To wit: who are the "bigot trolls"?

[Tricky]

They were inspired by the word of God.

As they understood it.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Toontown

So, you're a bigot troll then?

Just guessing, since you refuse to answer a simple question, which you brought up. To wit: who are the "bigot trolls"?

And just like that. They Live!

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

And just like that. They Live!

And just like that, I get falsely accused of being a bigot troll.

IT LIVES!

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Toontown

And just like that, I get falsely accused of being a bigot troll.

IT LIVES!

Ever heard of body of work? Don't be shy, you are really proud of it.

[Dcdrac]

What motivaed them was the twisted extremem version of Wahibi Islam that fed the even more extreme Islamism of Al Quaida.

They broke some of the central tenants of Islam by

A Committing sucicide - strictly forbidden in Islam

B Committing murder

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I think you have the causality backwards. Al Qaeda would choose the same enemies and the same allies regardless of US involvement.

Al Qaeda would still have the Saudis as their enemy if the US stopped supporting the Saudis? Perhaps, but there would be one fewer disagreement between them. Possibly their main disagreement.

Quote:

Rather, the sort of people al Qaeda allies itself with are the kind of people the US doesn't like to support, and the kind of people al Qaeda hates are more likely to be the kind of people the US is willing to support.

I don't see a lot of moral consistency in what kind of people the US is willing to support... except perhaps if you mean to say "people who want to sell them oil".

Quote:

Take the example I gave before: not only did they murder a child with Down syndrome who had done nothing, they use him to try to kill voters, for voting.

I think it is tragic that some people think war justifies such things. If only we could get people to fight fair in wars, or not fight at all...

Quote:

Refusing to assign them culpability is not a lot better than assigning culpability elsewhere.

I prefer to be quick to understand rather than quick to judge. I prefer to leave the judging to judges. I'm funny that way, I know. Judging how "culpable" someone is is not my job and falls outside my area of expertise, so I'll leave that to trained professionals.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Ever heard of body of work? Don't be shy, you are really proud of it.

Once again...

IT LIVES!

[Humes fork]

If you are into those corners of the Internet, you can actually download the testimonies of the 9/11 hijackers. Maybe that will shed some light.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Al Qaeda would still have the Saudis as their enemy if the US stopped supporting the Saudis? Perhaps, but there would be one fewer disagreement between them. Possibly their main disagreement.

Hey, great point. Removing areas of disagreement between countries and mass murdering terrorists is a great idea! A great example of the invaluable gems of wisdom to be found in internet political forums!

Hey, why not go all the way, dump all our lousy "allies" and embrace al Qaeda. That would remove lots of areas of disagreement. And we don't need to worry about our worthless "allies" turning on us. They're all wussies. They won't do anything. The ones we need to stay on the good side of are those awesome mass-murdering terrorists.

[bigjelmapro]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

It is not magically different, it is just frowned upon more. Most countries today realise that if they allow some countries to conquer other countries, their own territories may be under threat. Conquest went out of style during a little skirmish called "World War 2" where some countries tried to take over a bunch of others in a rather unpleasant way. After that they got together, promised not to do things like that again and founded the United Nations.
...

As Ziggurat touched up on that 'frowned upon', has no legal significance. Other than that, what 'countries conquering other countries' are we actually talking about here? Nation/state building didn't go 'out of style' post WWII. I don't know where you get this from.

Personally, I didn't see much complaining from the Islamic uhmmah post 1920's when the US helped form Saudi Arabia as a country, even through the Pan-Arabism phase, up until Islamism took its place. Now that the regions that were developed with the aid of Western countries have been developed, IMO, the Islamists just want to make claim to these areas and for the state that they are in, without having invested the time to do the developing in the first place. Case and point, in the area I live in, Tel Aviv or even Zichron Yaakov and Beersheva.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Hey, great point. Removing areas of disagreement between countries and mass murdering terrorists is a great idea! A great example of the invaluable gems of wisdom to be found in internet political forums!

Hey, why not go all the way, dump all our lousy "allies" and embrace al Qaeda. That would remove lots of areas of disagreement. And we don't need to worry about our worthless "allies" turning on us. They're all wussies. They won't do anything. The ones we need to stay on the good side of are those awesome mass-murdering terrorists.

Post #68

Ho ho

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Post #68

Ho ho

Gosh. It's almost as if you are suggesting that I am bigoted toward mass-murdering terrorists.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Gosh. It's almost as if you are suggesting that I am bigoted toward mass-murdering terrorists.

Try again. I suppose at least someone is still paying attention to your posts outside your sidekick. No-one else is.

Only for the giggles though.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Try again. I suppose at least someone is still paying attention to your posts outside your sidekick. No-one else is.

Only for the giggles though.

Gosh. Character assassination, and now marginalization. What will you think of next? More character assassination and more marginalization?

Yes, I suppose some of them do get tired of getting their thought-cop-straitjacketed asses kicked by a toon. But I wasn't trying to win any popularity contests.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

I don't see a lot of moral consistency in what kind of people the US is willing to support... except perhaps if you mean to say "people who want to sell them oil".

Iran would gladly sell us oil. Saddam would have too. The idea that it's only about oil for us is naive.

Quote:

I think it is tragic that some people think war justifies such things. If only we could get people to fight fair in wars, or not fight at all...

But you cannot get people to do that. So what will you do?

Quote:

I prefer to be quick to understand rather than quick to judge.

But I don't think you do understand.

Quote:

I prefer to leave the judging to judges.

Judges cannot protect us from international terrorism.

Quote:

I'm funny that way, I know.

Yes, it is peculiar to try to treat war as simply crime.

Quote:

Judging how "culpable" someone is is not my job and falls outside my area of expertise, so I'll leave that to trained professionals.

You need "professionals" to tell you that strapping a bomb to a child with down syndrome and sending him out to blow up people for voting is evil? You haven't taken any sort of high road. You have ceded the basic moral responsibility that we all have to recognize evil. That is moral cowardice, not enlightenment. And hypocritical moral cowardice to boot: you haven't ceded judgment about our foreign policy to the trained professionals. But that's actually more complex and obscure than recognizing evil when you see it.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Gosh. Character assassination, and now marginalization. What will you think of next? More character assassination and more marginalization?

Yes, I suppose some of them do get tired of getting their thought-cop-straitjacketed asses kicked by a toon. But I wasn't trying to win any popularity contests.

Check the thread. Tumbleweed to your trolling then you bleat when I pull you up for it. You should be glad someone is paying you attention.

I'm here for you............