Why They Hate Us...How Many Muslims Have US Killed In Last 30 Years?
- Thread starter JBeee
- Start date
Really? So foreign policy by the West had nothing to do with why the West gets attacked....nothing?
Have you ever even spoken to a person from the area?
You are so wrong here it's laughable.
You left out some things about what really went down in the Gulf War....here's a hint....April Glaspie.
Sunni and Shia fought in a situation where no one had control because of......what?
The security council is controlled by the west.
Somalia, again Western invasion....don't look at it from your cozy chair Colpy...look at it from their perspective.
After the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan the lines for terrorist recruitment went way up....what else is a poor bugger to do when his family gets wiped out by a "stray" bomb? Get revenge on the ****ers that did it.
The U.S. and the West have spent decades propping up dictatorial regimes and taking sides and they are suddenly shocked that some are bloody well fed up of it?
What a joke.:roll:
It's this sort of "we did nothing wrong" attitude that is part of the problem. As well as thinking you can force democracy on people.
Foreign policy has a lot to do with why the west is attacked.
Islamist fanatics don't like it that we support a liberal western democracy in their midst.......that would be Israel, and is the biggest reason for the hatred of Islamic fundamentalists against us. And that hatred will never end as long as Israel exists....sooooo....
What have we done wrong? Oh, tons of things.....like supporting a Saudi royal family that has encouraged extremely radical Islamist sects.....a policy that backfired on them.....and us.
Not gone on to Baghdad in 1991. And when the US did finally finish the First Gulf War in 2003, failing to be prepared for the chaos that happened.
Supported the Shah of Iran for decades....in fact, put him in power.
And on and on and on.......but we have also done very good things for the Islamic world.....
But most of the bad stuff is in the past.......can't do anything about it now......so we have to carry on....and I certainly would not allow our foreign policy to be dictated by our enemies
On topic, Foreign policy should focus on helping people to exist on their own. Throwing money at a problem only creates dependency ... and that will come back to bite ass every time.
Moderator's Edit: Removed section involving a post that was removed.
Moderator's Edit: Removed section involving a post that was removed.
Last edited by a moderator:
There was no fighting between Shia and Sunni when Saddam was in power (I suppose he alone was doing enough killing for both). The infighting between Shia and Sunni started after Bush invaded Iraq.
So nobody is accusing Bush for killing half a million Iraqis (as I said before, USA does not set out to kill Muslims). However, USA does bear indirect responsibility for all the violence occurring in Iraq after the Iraq invasion.
Besides, Colpy may disagree, but I think Fundamentalist Islam is a bigger threat that USSR ever was. There was a balance of power (or balance of terror) between USA and USSR. Both were armed to the hilt, but nether dare attack the other, because they knew that whoever embarked upon the first nuclear strike will be paid back ten fold.
But here is the important difference between USSR and Taliban or Al Qaeda. USSR did not want their country devastated by nuclear war, so they did not attack USA. There was peace between the two for decades.
Al Qaeda or Taliban does not care if there is a hundred fold retaliation, they do not care if 100 million Muslims die as a result of US retaliation. If they can get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they will hit USA, hit it hard, and damn the consequences.
Possibility of nuclear warfare is greatly increased with Taliban or Al Qaeda, and in that respect, Taliban is a much more dangerous enemy that USSR (though perhaps not as powerful).
In World War 2, USA was shrewd enough to realize that Nazi Germany was a much more dangerous enemy than USSR. Unfortunately, they got things wrong in Afghanistan, they decided to support the wrong side (Taliban).
Indeed. This attitude is prevalent in USA (‘we did nothing wrong’). If USA does not learn from its mistakes with Taliban and with Saddam, it is destined to repeat them.
I think JBeee (or whoever wrote the article, if it is copy and paste) makes a very good point, why do the moderates in the Islamic world have such an enmity towards USA? One can understand Osama Ben laden, Mullah Mohammed Omar etc, and dismiss them out of hand. But why the ill feeling on the part of moderates?
I think the answer is that USA means well, they set out to do the right thing, then screw everything up and end up hurting those they wanted to help.
I think USA has to do some soul searching. Obviously whatever they are doing in the Middle East is not working. They have to ask themselves, what can we do differently and how?
If they go on with the same arrogant, swaggering attitude that we didn’t do anything wrong, they are destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
Enough! What is the point of having people on Ignore if you are going to bring it up ad nauseum?
It shouldn't matter if a person's post is seen via a person's quote. If you see that person's name, just scroll past that post as well. Not a perfect system, but it works well enough. If you have a person on Ignore, then Ignore that person. If you want to respond to a post from that person, just take them off Ignore! The whole "well, I have you on Ignore, but I saw your post in a quote, so I am going to respond" spiel is getting tired.
I don't dislike you, far from it actually, but sometimes you can frustrate me to no end. I am saying this as a fellow poster, NOT as a Mod.
It shouldn't matter if a person's post is seen via a person's quote. If you see that person's name, just scroll past that post as well. Not a perfect system, but it works well enough. If you have a person on Ignore, then Ignore that person. If you want to respond to a post from that person, just take them off Ignore! The whole "well, I have you on Ignore, but I saw your post in a quote, so I am going to respond" spiel is getting tired.
I don't dislike you, far from it actually, but sometimes you can frustrate me to no end. I am saying this as a fellow poster, NOT as a Mod.
Point taken, I will keep that in mind. And you may say that as a fellow poster, but it is hardly possible to keep the two separate. Anyway, I will keep that in mind for future. There is no need to mention that somebody is on 'ignore' again.
However, I do reserve the right to respond to a particular post from somebody who I have on ignore.
Sure it can be kept separate, and I did in this instance. I am not threatening punishment at all. I am saying it as a regular reader who has noticed it cropping up lately, that's all.
And thank you for keeping it in mind.:smile:
ETA: Since you edited your post while I was creating this post...
That is fine, you can do that but don't make mention of it all the time. If you want to respond to a post, respond to the post. Any mentioning of Ignoring is not needed with said post.
*sigh*
Now I'm acting in a Mod capacity. How does this sound?
If a person is on Ignore and you want to respond to a post, then JUST respond to the post. No mention of whether or not that person is on Ignore is required, nor wanted.
Also, if anyone else has a problem with a person responding to a post from a person that is on said person's Ignore list, also don't make mention of it. There really is no need to drag this thread down.
There are more important things than whether or not a person is or isn't on a person's Ignore list.
Now I'm acting in a Mod capacity. How does this sound?
If a person is on Ignore and you want to respond to a post, then JUST respond to the post. No mention of whether or not that person is on Ignore is required, nor wanted.
Also, if anyone else has a problem with a person responding to a post from a person that is on said person's Ignore list, also don't make mention of it. There really is no need to drag this thread down.
There are more important things than whether or not a person is or isn't on a person's Ignore list.
Sure it can be kept separate, and I did in this instance. I am not threatening punishment at all. I am saying it as a regular reader who has noticed it cropping up lately, that's all.
And thank you for keeping it in mind.:smile:
ETA: Since you edited your post while I was creating this post...
That is fine, you can do that but don't make mention of it all the time. If you want to respond to a post, respond to the post. Any mentioning of Ignoring is not needed with said post.
Quite so, we are in agreement.
Besides, what's the point of having someone on ignore if you aren't going to ignore them? It seems foolish to me.
Anyway, the topic:
"Why They Hate Us...How Many Muslims Have US Killed In Last 30 Years?" ...
Too many. How many US citizens have Muslims killed in the last 30 years? Also, too many.
It isn't mandatory for someone to keep their Ignore list up. As long as no mention is made of that list isn't made while posting a response, then there won't be a problem.
Avro
How you arrive at the conclusion that it was a Western Invasion is beyond me -
Would the US intervention in the Former Yugoslavia also qualify as a Western Invasion?
http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.html
An old Somalia saying - Me aginst my brother, my brother and I against my father, my brother, father and I against his brother. The Clans are the problem -
If as recommended by an aid expert - stay away from the capitial and secure areas outside - a different ending would have been highly possible -
OEC - Somalia (1992)
It was 1992, and the country of Somalia was becoming a full-fledged war zone. The "scorched earth" policies of the warring clans in Somalia caused a famine. When relief workers attempted to bring food in, one of the clans would burn it to prevent it from falling into the hands of their enemies. The U.S. indicated an interest in getting involved and aiding the famine-stricken.Fred Cuny studied the situation and decided the best strategy would be to avoid working in Mogadishu, the capital city. He wanted to create a "zone of tranquillity" away from the capital. Cuny believed that it was best to stay away from the cities because it was too difficult to give aid in such a chaotic setting. However, the U.S. government decided to they would try to solve the problem by landing in Mogadishu and restoring order there. Cuny needed to decide whether or to offer his expertise to the government in carrying out their plan or continue campaigning for his own.For Fred Cuny, it was an easy call. He felt the government's plan was dangerous, so he wrote op-ed articles in many major U.S. newspapers carefully spelling out his plans. But the U.S. government ignored the disaster relief expert and went into Mogadishu anyway. The expedition was a huge failure, with several Americans being killed and the famine still going strong after they left. It was not a happy situation for anyone involved, but once again Cuny demonstrated the depth of his understanding of relief efforts and what is needed to make them effective.
How you arrive at the conclusion that it was a Western Invasion is beyond me -
Would the US intervention in the Former Yugoslavia also qualify as a Western Invasion?
http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.html
An old Somalia saying - Me aginst my brother, my brother and I against my father, my brother, father and I against his brother. The Clans are the problem -
If as recommended by an aid expert - stay away from the capitial and secure areas outside - a different ending would have been highly possible -
OEC - Somalia (1992)
It was 1992, and the country of Somalia was becoming a full-fledged war zone. The "scorched earth" policies of the warring clans in Somalia caused a famine. When relief workers attempted to bring food in, one of the clans would burn it to prevent it from falling into the hands of their enemies. The U.S. indicated an interest in getting involved and aiding the famine-stricken.Fred Cuny studied the situation and decided the best strategy would be to avoid working in Mogadishu, the capital city. He wanted to create a "zone of tranquillity" away from the capital. Cuny believed that it was best to stay away from the cities because it was too difficult to give aid in such a chaotic setting. However, the U.S. government decided to they would try to solve the problem by landing in Mogadishu and restoring order there. Cuny needed to decide whether or to offer his expertise to the government in carrying out their plan or continue campaigning for his own.For Fred Cuny, it was an easy call. He felt the government's plan was dangerous, so he wrote op-ed articles in many major U.S. newspapers carefully spelling out his plans. But the U.S. government ignored the disaster relief expert and went into Mogadishu anyway. The expedition was a huge failure, with several Americans being killed and the famine still going strong after they left. It was not a happy situation for anyone involved, but once again Cuny demonstrated the depth of his understanding of relief efforts and what is needed to make them effective.
why not? the excuse was that the Kuwaiti's were slant drilling into Iraq. Iraq was just defending their soveriegnty. Just as good an excuse, if not better, as the american excuses for invading Iraq.
Goober, I myself supported the invasion of Kuwait, most of the world did. But that is not the issue here, that is not the subject of the thread here.
Huh? There aren't any Muslims in Kuwait? None were killed in that miniwar? The US didn't kill any there?
SJP
Yes it is part of the discussion -
Jbeee brought that into the format. Post number 5
Avro also brought in Somalia - Is that also to be excluded -