Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 85
  1. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Then you [and likely your children's children's children] can still be laughing when the US repeats its same grave errors in policy judgment on behalf of future generations.
    Again, what specific policy are you referring to in regard to Al-Qaida?


    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    More definition of the void of understanding of what nationalism doesn't mean in the general muslim world. This is good when we can define what a lack of mental curiosity really means ... and costs..
    So the U.S. military base is the reason thousands of innocents were slaughtered on 9/11. I wonder how many local Saudis work on these bases? How many truely hate it being there?


    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Pat Robertson hates us?
    Last I checked, Pat Robertson hasnt sawed somebodies head off on videotape, or called on his followers to blow up children.



    When does the middle eastern world have to stand up and take some responsibility for their actions. How long can they just go on blaming the U.S. and Israel?
  2. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    So from your perspective what this is boiling down to is religion - that we are going to be attacked by fanatics because we are infidels. They won't attack us because they hate our freedom but they will attack us because it is our fate - there will be a jihad or holy war so we may as well try to head em' off at the pass. Is that the basic logic of your argument?
    This topic was started because of the "blowback" comment in regards to 9/11.

    Are you trying to say that bin laden attacked us because of oil? What "failed US policy" or any other policy caused the US to be attacked?
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I still maintain Bush is remarkably and hypocritically warm to a country that sponsored the worst terrorist attack on this nation and if it weren't for oil we'd have bombed them before we ever set foot in Afghanistan and certainly long before we invaded Iraq. That is the point. Oil is thre reason we have a frigged up "middle east" policy - there is no other.
    Where did you get the idea that Saudi Arabia sponsored 9/11? They actually revoked bin Laden's citizenship many years ago and seized his assets.

    And the reason we didn't invade Saudi Arabia is that when Bush demanded that countries side "with us or against us", they chose "with us." So did Pakistan. So did Yemen. So did Iran. Afghanistan did not.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    So the U.S. military base is the reason thousands of innocents were slaughtered on 9/11.
    It was one of the contributing factors to UBL becoming who he is and it was one of the reasons he was able to recruit radicals to his cause.


    Last I checked, Pat Robertson hasnt sawed somebodies head off on videotape, or called on his followers to blow up children.
    Agreed. There is no correlation or comparison to Pat Robertson to terrorists and I for one have not made such a claim.

    When does the middle eastern world have to stand up and take some responsibility for their actions.
    They won't. They'll just keep holding us hostage with their oil while using religion and fanatacism and the US and Israel as distractions from their own people that don't get to share in the bulk of oil generated wealth. In other words, keep em' poor, stupid, and pissed off at anyone but us while we reap the oil profits and buy another fleet of private Leer jets.

    How long can they just go on blaming the U.S. and Israel?
    As long as it works as a distraction from the truth. Which is why I want to cut em' off. We've made them rich enough and they've done next to nothing but pacify us to stop fanaticism as it suits them very well.
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    Again, what specific policy are you referring to in regard to Al-Qaida?
    Changing the basis of your point does not help your cause.

    So the U.S. military base is the reason thousands of innocents were slaughtered on 9/11.
    I'm sorry you feel that way. Hardly sound judgment given historical facts, but you're entitled to be laughed at for your opinion.

    Last I checked, Pat Robertson hasnt sawed somebodies head off on videotape, or called on his followers to blow up children.
    Sure he has. But finessed subtext is the name of America's cult.

    When does the middle eastern world have to stand up and take some responsibility for their actions.
    Probably, the very moment the US government understands and takes adult responsibility for the past 50+ years of muslim world pillage and plunder. Just a guess. Then again, it could be too little, too late. Ask your children's children's children what they can do to pay the price for the blindly-repeated sins of the father.

    How long can they just go on blaming the U.S. and Israel?
    Undeclared nuclear Israel?
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Where did you get the idea that Saudi Arabia sponsored 9/11? They actually revoked bin Laden's citizenship many years ago and seized his assets.

    And the reason we didn't invade Saudi Arabia is that when Bush demanded that countries side "with us or against us", they chose "with us." So did Pakistan. So did Yemen. So did Iran. Afghanistan did not.
    Read my next post. But in short, I don't think it was state sponsored. And UBL was banned because he insulted the royal family - I don't think he was banned because of his hatred of the US.
  7. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    It was one of the contributing factors to UBL becoming who he is and it was one of the reasons he was able to recruit radicals to his cause.
    So Saudi Arabia needs to run its foreign policy by Osama Bin Laden first? Maybe he is able to recruit people because of the oppressive regimes that these people live under in these garden spots of the world, coupled with the 24/7 anti US, west, and Israel garbage that is constantly being thrown at them in their schoolbooks, tv shows, radio, and politics.


    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Agreed. There is no correlation or comparison to Pat Robertson to terrorists and I for one have not made such a claim.
    That was for backbeat, who usually resorts to this type of conversation when a person counterpoints one of his arguements.


    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    As long as it works as a distraction from the truth. Which is why I want to cut em' off. We've made them rich enough and they've done next to nothing but pacify us to stop fanaticism as it suits them very well.
    Very difficult to do while the western world is still reliant on oil. We shall one day see what happens to these countries when their oil supplies are gone.

    However, I still dont think oil is the reason at all why Bin Laden kills people.
  8. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    So Saudi Arabia needs to run its foreign policy by Osama Bin Laden first?
    The religious right doesn't have to anoint US policy?

    Maybe he is able to recruit people because of the oppressive regimes that these people live under in these garden spots of the world, coupled with the 24/7 anti US, west, and Israel garbage that is constantly being thrown at them in their schoolbooks, tv shows, radio, and politics.
    To the same extent that you're a victim of US-backed societal manipulation.

    That was for backbeat, who usually resorts to this type of conversation when a person counterpoints one of his arguements.
    Yet, you run away from the direct response and operate laughable pot-shots thru 3rd parties. Typical.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    So Saudi Arabia needs to run its foreign policy by Osama Bin Laden first?
    Uh? Where did I say that?

    Very difficult to do while the western world is still reliant on oil. We shall one day see what happens to these countries when their oil supplies are gone.
    Sort of the point...I said that had we invested in alternative fuels 20 years ago and not let these oppressive regimes build their wealth with our money things could be very different today. Now they have us by the economic nuts while they rake it in AND allow the fundamalist to "change the subject" because it serves them all too well to not have their people noticing how poor they are and how rich their King is.

    However, I still dont think oil is the reason at all why Bin Laden kills people.
    You're taking an abstract or high-level concept and reaching a single concrete conclusion. I never said that Bin Laden kills people over oil. But he became who he is and has been successful in his evil deeds in large part because of our middle east foreign policy. That does not mean he is right or allowed to or that we deserved it. But our policies in the middle east are a major reason for his movement's success and our policies over there are largely dictated by our insatiable appetite for their oil.
  10. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Uh? Where did I say that?
    You said the base was a contributing factor. I have my doubts bin laden does anything because of this base. I think he feels that he is doing the will of his "god". That what he does is righteous, and anybody that does not agree with his religious values is the enemy and should be killed.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Read my next post. But in short, I don't think it was state sponsored. And UBL was banned because he insulted the royal family - I don't think he was banned because of his hatred of the US.
    He was banned because he supported fundamentalist clerics who opposed the regime, and because the US pressured the Saudis to take action against bin Laden for his terrorist activities.
  12. #52  
    Not so sure about that. I've read a different version of what happened than what you have.

    Following the "victory" in 1989, bin Laden returned home to Saudi Arabia intending to organize a new jihad in South Yemen. He began to hold public rallies warning his countrymen against a possible invasion by Saddam Hussein. The Saudi government took a very dim view of his activities and banned him from traveling, insisting he keep "a low profile."

    Following Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, bin Laden reportedly felt vindicated and sent several letters to King Faisal instructing him how to protect the kingdom and offered to help fight the invaders.

    It was then that President George Bush authorized "Operation Desert Storm" and sent the U.S. military to defend Kuwait. Bin Laden was incensed and began mobilizing an army of his own.

    "Osama bin Laden had never thought that the Saudi regime would go to the degree of allowing American forces inside Saudi Arabia, and he was actually shocked when he found out that the American forces were coming. He became crazy and very angry at that stage."

    Stanley Bedlington, a senior analyst with the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center from 1988 until 1994, also told the BBC:

    "Saudi Arabia to him [bin Laden] is the most holy country on earth and it should not be befouled, he would say, by any external forces. That's his major objective."

    Within days of the U.S. "invasion," bin Laden had amassed more than 4,000 Saudi supporters and took them to Afghanistan to begin training. Because the Saudi government had aligned itself with the U.S., it considered bin Laden's activities an embarrassing intervention and, after several warnings, eventually placed him under "house arrest."

    With his plans stifled, and being unable to effectively plead his case, bin Laden used his family's royal connections to secure permission to travel to Pakistan on "business." He arrived in Pakistan in 1991 and moved directly into Afghanistan but found the country in the midst of political turmoil following the Soviet withdrawal. After several failed attempts to mediate between the warring factions, he learned that the Saudis had requested Pakistani intelligence to track him down and kill him. Using his influence, he was able to make his escape to Sudan in a private jet.


    Sudan map with Khartoum (AP)


    Settling in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, bin Laden offered to provide the Sudanese government with construction equipment and funding to build much needed roads, an airport and other projects in exchange for his safety and freedom of movement. The Sudanese government, sharing his radical version of Islam, welcomed him and treated him as its "special guest." He formed links with some of the country's top ministers, including Dr. Hassan Al Tarabi, a radical thinker who has been described as the country's "ideological leader."

    Interviewed on the BBC's Panorama program following the September 11 attacks, Al Tarabi described bin Laden's motivation:

    "I would say that he focuses on advancing Islamic thoughts of new policies and programs for the Islamic society, but if he hears about Muslims suffering anywhere or someone oppressing them or attacking them he will go there to try to put up as much money as he can to get behind the Muslim fighting."

    Although he had found safety and freedom of movement in his new home, bin Laden was still within the reach of the Saudi government and just barely escaped two further attempts on his life. In 1994 the Saudis turned against him in a different way when they revoked his citizenship and banned him from returning to his homeland.
    In short, he is a rich spoiled p!sspot that was insulted by the Saudi's by accepting help by the Americans during Desert Storm. But there was much more to his being banned than American pressure to do so. I think the Saudi royals wanted him dead for many reasons, but at the top of the list was his public assertions that they were not muslim enough.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I think the Saudi royals wanted him dead for many reasons, but at the top of the list was his public assertions that they were not muslim enough.
    That's what I said, except you're phrasing it without directly mentioning the fundamentalist clerics. These fundamentalists are driven by religion. I think you're missing that perspective here and in other posts. It has nothing to do with insults and egos. It's about a worldview that opposes secular government and allowing infidels to walk on holy ground. al Qaeda isn't primarily motivated by politics and oil. It's driven by a need to destroy the infidels. Peaceful coexistence is not compatible with their beliefs.
  14. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Bottom-line: You find ultimate and sole blame with the general Muslim faith, correct?
    where did you see Samkim say that? Another one of your brillant statements and a total invention of your mind. Its pointless to even attempt to carry on a conversation with you.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    So from your perspective what this is boiling down to is religion - that we are going to be attacked by fanatics because we are infidels. They won't attack us because they hate our freedom but they will attack us because it is our fate - there will be a jihad or holy war so we may as well try to head em' off at the pass. Is that the basic logic of your argument?
    I know this was not directed at me, but there is a basis for the argument that they will attack us for our freedom and/or democracy style of gov:

    "Democracy is based on the principle that the people are the source of all authority, including the legislative [authority]," said the speaker, who identified himself as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of the al-Qaida affiliate in Iraq, "in other words, the legislator who must be obeyed in a democracy is man, and not Allah. That means that the one who is worshiped and obeyed and deified, from the point of view of legislating and prohibiting, is man, the created, and not Allah. That is the very essence of heresy and polytheism and error, as it contradicts the bases of the faith [of Islam] and monotheism, and because it makes the weak, ignorant man Allah's partner in His most central divine prerogative..."

    (Naturally, people like Zarqawi want to be the ones who tell you what their god wants you to do. )

    "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," al-Qaida rants. "Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it."

    The speaker said candidates running in the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq are "demi-idols" and those who vote for them "are infidels."

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=152
    At least 750 million Muslims live in democratic societies of one kind or another, including Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Europe, North America, Israel, and even Iran so I believe that democracy can and does work in a Middle Eastern Muslim country, culture, and standard accepted versions of their religion.....though there is a lot of resistance to it by radical groups as they see this as a them losing power in this form of gov. There are radical Islamic leaders and orgs who view Democracy as an evil that must be eliminated and all those that participate in it or support it must be eliminated.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I know this was not directed at me, but there is a basis for the argument that they will attack us for our freedom and/or democracy style of gov:
    I believe the context of this was in response to our invasion of Afghanistan to toss out the Taliban - I can't imagine they'd have anything better to say since they were tossed out on their butts and needed to find a way to rally the troops toward a common goal.

    Look, the fact is Bin Laden hated us being in Saudi during Desert Storm and that was a pivotal moment in time for him and his movement. Can we agree on that? And the main reason we came to the defense of Kuwait was oil - can we agree on that?
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat
    Bottom-line: You find ultimate and sole blame with the general Muslim faith, correct?
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    where did you see Samkim say that? Another one of your brillant statements and a total invention of your mind. Its pointless to even attempt to carry on a conversation with you.
    Tom - With all the respect I can muster and in the kindest manner in which I can put it, get lost. Summation requires the elements presented to form a bottom-line. Were they your elements, Tom? No.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    That's what I said, except you're phrasing it without directly mentioning the fundamentalist clerics. These fundamentalists are driven by religion. I think you're missing that perspective here and in other posts. It has nothing to do with insults and egos. It's about a worldview that opposes secular government and allowing infidels to walk on holy ground. al Qaeda isn't primarily motivated by politics and oil. It's driven by a need to destroy the infidels. Peaceful coexistence is not compatible with their beliefs.
    Using ill-defined Muslim clerics as the root basis for your position of blame, samkim, leaves you with blaming the general muslim world. Care to clarify your position?
  18. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Tom - With all the respect I can muster and in the kindest manner in which I can put it, get lost. Summation requires the elements presented to form a bottom-line. Were they your elements, Tom? No.
    Typical backbeat, in absence of any facts or any type of logical response, he results to put downs.

    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Using ill-defined Muslim clerics as the root basis for your position of blame, samkim, leaves you with blaming the general muslim world. Care to clarify your position?
    That generalization exists only in your mind. Reposting Samkims response doesnt change the fact that those of your strange words, not his.

    Its ironic that somebody with your Avatar is taking somebody to task for blaming the muslim faith for anything. Hypocrisy at its finest.
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #59  
    ^ Just can't allow samkim to speak for himself?

    Your unfounded slander is noted.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I believe the context of this was in response to our invasion of Afghanistan to toss out the Taliban - I can't imagine they'd have anything better to say since they were tossed out on their butts and needed to find a way to rally the troops toward a common goal.
    No, context doesn't change anything. The quote is representative of al Qaeda's views.

    Do some research on Sayyid Qutb. His writings were very influential on bin Laden and Zawahiri.

    Look, the fact is Bin Laden hated us being in Saudi during Desert Storm and that was a pivotal moment in time for him and his movement. Can we agree on that? And the main reason we came to the defense of Kuwait was oil - can we agree on that?
    bin Laden's "formative" years were actually in Afghanistan, fighting against the Soviets.

    bin Laden hated us and the rest of the western world for being infidels. He hated the Saudis for letting infidels come in and for straying from the true path. And yes, he hated that we were in Saudi Arabia and wanted us out, but that's not the reason he hated us. (Read Qutb.)

    You could make the argument that if we hadn't been in Saudi Arabia, MAYBE we might have been a lower priority target for him relative to the rest of the western world. But that's speculation, and he would be seeking our eventual destruction just the same.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions