Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have yet to get a good reply to that question.
What did the US do to deserve the 5 attacks under Clinton as well as 9-11?
The answer is extremely complex IMO but it basically boils down to the idea the freedom such as found in the US is threat to "the religion of peace". The very idea that an individual has certain "unalienable rights" implies freedom of choice. If one has freedom of choice, they may choose not to follow the teachings of the kuran and may even choose not to acknowledge Allah.
This is complete bullshi*!
This isn't a "holy" war. At least it wasn't to begin with. It was purely political. The right wing pundits have succeeded in shoving the myth down your throat that these terrorists are after you because you won't convert to Islam.
It's not that simple.
They are after you because you allow your government to meddle in THEIR way of life. It's the other way around!
So why was the US attacked repeatedly for 2 decades before 9/11? I mean if 'Iraq' started it all? For that matter, why 9/11?
I never said Iraq "started" anything. No Iraqi terrorist has ever attacked the U.S. on behalf of the nation of Iraq.
Why 9-11? Please get your hands on the book "Blowback-The Costs and Consequences of American Empire" by Chalmers Johnson. He basically predicted a major, catastrophic attack like 9-11 a year before it occurred based upon U.S. foreign policy practices in the middle east that have been fermenting and festering hatred toward the west for years and years.
Right after 9-11 a professor at the University of New Mexico (Albuquerque) was put on administrative leave and nearly fired for telling a group of students what a "spectacular" and well executed attack those terrorists pulled off on 9-11. It was way too soon to be talking about that tragedy with anything close to objectivity but his point was correct from a military point of view. Remember.....the "terrorists" are simply the army with the smallest bombs.
Am I sympathising with the terrorists or "admiring" or "supporting" them?
No.
I am simply aknowledging the fact that the "rules" of warfare have changed. There aren't any "fronts" in this WOT other than U.S. foreign policy. The enemy doesn't dress himself up in uniforms which are easily distinguishable from ordinary Muslim garb. They don't play by our "rules" and why should they? They want to win. They have taken their strategies straight from Sun Tzu. They have looked at the U.S. for decades and seen a giant, well armoured dragon and realized they have no hope of defeating it by conventional means. Instead they found a tiny chink in the armour. They know we are too big and clumsy to fight terrorism on the scale of small independent cells. Our armies are not set up that way.
There is a lot of interesting reading, as far as military literature goes concerning the battles with the Apache indians in the southwest toward the end of the nineteenth century. As far as I know they still teach cadets at West Point about the "Apache wars" and still hold those bands of ragtag, gut eating warriors up as an example of one of the most deadly and effective light calvaries in the history of warfare. Someday no doubt they will teach the same thing about today's radical Islamic terrorists.
I've already read Blowback. Do you really think our military does not study Sun Tzu also?
Tell me, what would you be different if you had 'control?'
American military bases in Muslim holy lands were in place during the Clinton administration as well as U.S. support for Israel.
"American" foreign policy is not necessarily "Bush's" foreign policy. All he's done is make a bad situation worse!
I've already read Blowback. Do you really think our military does not study Sun Tzu also?
Tell me, what would you be different if you had 'control?'
Of course. But the practices are strictly "theoretical."
For starters I would withdraw all military presence from the middle east and stop ALL U.S. support of Israel.
Give in to any and all terrorist demands of course, since that is why we were "attacked" was because we didn't do what they wanted.
There you go with your gross oversimplification again!
Tell me agin Ret.Gunny.....
What are the primary "demands" of these "terrorists" that we are failing to do?
So that justifies the terrorist attacks? In order to stop the attacks, the US has to give into the terrorists demands?
Dems still believe appeasement is the answer to stop terrorism
Of course. But the practices are strictly "theoretical."
For starters I would withdraw all military presence from the middle east and stop ALL U.S. support of Israel.
So, give into the terrorists demands? Not going to happen. In case you failed to notice it is American and European countries that are getting the oil out for the most part. I seriously doubt we will through Israel to the wolves.
BULLSHIT!
That is the message from the peace loving and tolerant Muslim terrorists
Who said Muslim terrorists are peace loving?
They're not. In fact they are a lot like you RSR. They believe that violence is the only way to achieve their end.
