And Why Did the Terrorist Attack Us?

[Kalam]

I agree, but why Russia.

Al-Qa'idah absolutely hates Russia for what they've done in Chechnya. I share that sentiment insofar as I detest the Russian military and government. The people I don't blame.

I'm detecting a pattern here, justified hatred. "We wouldn't have attacked if you guys hadn't kicked our asses in [insert situation]."

Do you know anything about what has happened in the Caucasus over the past 20 years? Serious question.

 

[manu1959]

Why?

Well, they don't like our foreign policy, and they do have a nasty hate against the West, not just America..

It's pretty simple.

One thing though.. Even if we didn't have our troops around the Middle East do you really think for a second they still wouldn't have attacked us?

Yes. If America did not have a military presence in the Middle East and did not have a history of interference or supporting corrupt regimes and Israel, I can absolutely assure you that the attacks would not have occurred. It would probably have been Israel or Russia.

the us military asked to have bases in the middle east by several countries and that permission was granted.....

kuwait asked us to help....

the cia puppet thing is fucked up and should stop...

but is the appropriate response to fly jets into office buildings, blow up train stations and double decker busses and and burn down an elementray school and cut reporters heads off on you tube....

"islam" is fortunate the "west" no longer responds as they did in middle ages.....

a for islam attacking the soviets or israel.....ya right.....the middle east would be on big sheet of glass if you all flew a jet into the kremlin....

 

[Flopper]

There's the rub, that whole "history of interference."

So you're saying that even if we pulled out of all of it today and the leftist economic model of Muslim Caliph wannabees kept life very bad for people there would still be a justification to attack?

So there is no solution other than to actually wage war and eliminate the threat then?

We did not create this mess overnight. It took 60 years. Our strategic plan for the Middle East for over half century has been based on unequivocally support of Israel against it's neighbors and keeping Arab oil flowing to the west. This has to change. Israel must come to terms with it's neighbors or stand up to them without US support. We must reduce our dependence on Arab oil or we will forever be intruding into the affairs of these countries to protect our interest in region.

Ah.

So pulling out right now won't stop the attacks then?

We can't pull out immediately but there are somethings we can do now. First, if we are going to set ourself up as a broker of peace in the Middle East, we can't take Israel's side on every issue that comes up. We have done that before and it infuriates the Palestinians and makes us look like hypocrites throughout the Muslim world. Secondly, we should keep in mind our mission which is to eliminate the terrorist, not to supplant their culture with ours.

 

[Kalam]

the us military asked to have bases in the middle east by several countries and that permission was granted.....

kuwait asked us to help....

The countries of the Middle East are ruled by corrupt thugs. In many cases, they're supported by the West. It's no coincidence that the Saudis allowed one of their biggest oil purchasers to establish a military presence in Makkah and elsewhere in the country.

the cia puppet thing is fucked up and should stop...

but is the appropriate response to fly jets into office buildings, blow up train stations and double decker busses and and burn down an elementray school and cut reporters heads off on you tube....

Appropriate? No. Likely? Yes.

"islam" is fortunate the "west" no longer responds as they did in middle ages.....

Didn't work out too well then, did it?

a for islam attacking the soviets or israel.....ya right.....the middle east would be on big sheet of glass if you all flew a jet into the kremlin....

Russia is just as connected to those corrupt regimes as the US is; they couldn't afford to do that.

 

[asterism]

Al-Qa'idah absolutely hates Russia for what they've done in Chechnya. I share that sentiment insofar as I detest the Russian military and government. The people I don't blame.

I'm detecting a pattern here, justified hatred. "We wouldn't have attacked if you guys hadn't kicked our asses in [insert situation]."

Do you know anything about what has happened in the Caucasus over the past 20 years? Serious question.

Yes I do. It's ironic that you bring it up at the same time you're justifying attacks on the US for protecting Saudi Arabia.

 

[asterism]

We did not create this mess overnight. It took 60 years. Our strategic plan for the Middle East for over half century has been based on unequivocally support of Israel against it's neighbors and keeping Arab oil flowing to the west. This has to change. Israel must come to terms with it's neighbors or stand up to them without US support. We must reduce our dependence on Arab oil or we will forever be intruding into the affairs of these countries to protect our interest in region.

Ah.

So pulling out right now won't stop the attacks then?

We can't pull out immediately but there are somethings we can do now. First, if we are going to set ourself up as a broker of peace in the Middle East, we can't take Israel's side on every issue that comes up. We have done that before and it infuriates the Palestinians and makes us look like hypocrites throughout the Muslim world. Secondly, we should keep in mind our mission which is to eliminate the terrorist, not to supplant their culture with ours.

You're talking in circles. If our presence in the Middle East is the justifiable reason to attack us but we can't pull out and stop the attacks then the premise is invalid. How did the last brokered peace deals in the Middle East work out? Did we not get attacked after them too?

 

[Kalam]

I'm detecting a pattern here, justified hatred. "We wouldn't have attacked if you guys hadn't kicked our asses in [insert situation]."

Do you know anything about what has happened in the Caucasus over the past 20 years? Serious question.

Yes I do.

Want to go into detail about how that's "our" fault?

It's ironic that you bring it up at the same time you're justifying attacks on the US for protecting Saudi Arabia.

I'm not justifying anything. Frankly, I blame the Saudis.

 

[asterism]

Do you know anything about what has happened in the Caucasus over the past 20 years? Serious question.

Yes I do.

Want to go into detail about how that's "our" fault?

I never thought it was your fault. The pattern I see is a constant justification to attack based on retribution.

It's ironic that you bring it up at the same time you're justifying attacks on the US for protecting Saudi Arabia.

I'm not justifying anything. Frankly, I blame the Saudis.

Ok, my mistake.

 

[Kalam]

I never thought it was your fault. The pattern I see is a constant justification to attack based on retribution.

I guess I don't quite understand what the problem with that is. Islamic ethical teachings emphasize the importance of retaliation to aggression and injustice.

Ok, my mistake.

It's easy to get the wrong message from some of my posts. I apologize for being unclear.

 

[MikeK]

We do not have to replace oil with another form of energy. We just have to reduce our dependence sufficiently so that a steady flow of foreign is not of strategic importance to us. This can be done with a combination of increasing domestic production and moving to other forms of energy. If there were any sanity in Washington, Democrats and Republicans could compromise on an energy bill that would accomplish energy independent within 10 years and put us on a road that would someday eliminate most of our needs for oil.

What the brainwashed right-wing fanatics who denounce truth and avoid logic carefully ignore is the fact that Jimmy Carter put the U.S. on the path to energy independence and Ronald Reagan contemptuously backhanded us right off it. If we had adhered to Carter's plan we would by now have achieved what Germany is about to achieve, which is deriving at least 25% of our energy from solar technology -- and that, alone, would free us from dependence on foreign oil. And we can only speculate on the benefits wind power and geothermal research would add to that.

So, in addition to his deregulation policies, which underlie the present economic crisis, we have Ronald Reagan, the dimwitted whore of the corporatocracy and hero of the contemporary right-wing, to thank for our most menacing problems.

 

[asterism]

I never thought it was your fault. The pattern I see is a constant justification to attack based on retribution.

I guess I don't quite understand what the problem with that is. Islamic ethical teachings emphasize the importance of retaliation to aggression and injustice.

So it seems changing strategy won't stop the attacks, which is my point.

 

[Kalam]

I never thought it was your fault. The pattern I see is a constant justification to attack based on retribution.

I guess I don't quite understand what the problem with that is. Islamic ethical teachings emphasize the importance of retaliation to aggression and injustice.

So it seems changing strategy won't stop the attacks, which is my point.

If your policy is changed in such a way that you no longer meddle in the affairs of the Muslim world, it is highly unlikely that you'll be attacked. Even al-Qa'idah has made that clear. You aren't going to be attacked perpetually for things you may have done in the past.

 

[manu1959]

I never thought it was your fault. The pattern I see is a constant justification to attack based on retribution.

I guess I don't quite understand what the problem with that is. Islamic ethical teachings emphasize the importance of retaliation to aggression and injustice.

So it seems changing strategy won't stop the attacks, which is my point.

once "we" convert to the proper type of islam the attacks will stop....hell muslim attack muslims and kill each other for practicing the wrong type of islam....

they have religious leaders saying people should be killed for expressing an opinion contray to thiers and their political leaders encourage it....

ya it is the "wests" fault that they were attacked....

remindes me of the frog and scorpion fable....

 

[manu1959]

I guess I don't quite understand what the problem with that is. Islamic ethical teachings emphasize the importance of retaliation to aggression and injustice.

So it seems changing strategy won't stop the attacks, which is my point.

If your policy is changed in such a way that you no longer meddle in the affairs of the Muslim world, it is highly unlikely that you'll be attacked. Even al-Qa'idah has made that clear. You aren't going to be attacked perpetually for things you may have done in the past.

bullshit....it is a religious tribal mentality...they are living in the middle ages....

 

[asterism]

I guess I don't quite understand what the problem with that is. Islamic ethical teachings emphasize the importance of retaliation to aggression and injustice.

So it seems changing strategy won't stop the attacks, which is my point.

If your policy is changed in such a way that you no longer meddle in the affairs of the Muslim world, it is highly unlikely that you'll be attacked. Even al-Qa'idah has made that clear. You aren't going to be attacked perpetually for things you may have done in the past.

Except that contradicts the point you just made. Retaliation is emphasized. Plus, Al Qaeda isn't as much religious as it is a racket for acquiring power. That's why they will attack the US and not Russia, despite your theoretical.

 

[Grey Mouse]

In response to the thread title, there is this excerpt from the article "Is Jihad Fard Kifaya or Fard Ayn?" posted on islamicemerate.com written by Ibn Nuhaas. I'd post a link, however, I'm unable to at the present time due to not having enough posts.

"This is all regarding the Jihad, which is Kifayah - a collective duty - (starting war with the non-believers on their territory). But if the enemy enters the Muslim land, or even approaches it and masses on its borders, even if they do not actually enter it, and their armies are double the size of that of the Muslims or less, then Jihad becomes mandatory on each and every individual. Then, the slave leaves without the permission of the master, the woman without the permission of her husband (if she has the strength to fight according to the stronger opinion), the son without the permission of the parents, and the one indebt without the permission of the lender. All of the above stated is the opinion of Imam Malik, Ahmad, and Abu Hanifah (in addition to the madhab of the author which is Shafi’i)."

The first sentence in the above quote makes it fairly clear as to why they feel they can attack any country made up of "unbelievers". The rest explains rather well the reason they're fighting "unbelievers" in their own lands. They feel they not only have the right, but that they're commanded/obligated to.

Please don't get the idea that I find their justifications/reasons/ideals acceptable, because I don't. I have nothing good to say about a religion that treats people (believers as well as unbelievers) the way Islam does.

I think the most relevant part of this quote is "But if the enemy enters the Muslim land,"

Flopper, I believe you missed the parenthetical statement in the first sentence of the article I quoted. "This is all regarding the Jihad, which is Kifayah - a collective duty -*(starting war with the non-believers on their territory)*" Any country will react to being invaded and feel justified in reacting to such an invasion. Islam is not a country, it is a religion. That parenthetical statement is indicative of the goals of Islam. One of the difficulties with Islam is that Muslims feel that wherever they are is their country, which means that no matter where they are, they're being invaded. And before people jump on me, yes I'm aware that there are countries where Islam is the rule of the land. This does not in any way diminish the fact that Islam is a religion, practiced in many countries throughout the world and not just an area defined on a map.

One thing that I've seen consistently stated by Muslims of all levels of enthusiasm is that non-believers are inferior to Muslims and deserve whatever they get in the way of disrespect from Muslims. As far as I can tell, this is done for one of two reasons - turn the unbeliever into a believer or force them out. The consistent insistence on Sharia Law being adopted is an excellent example of that, and most of the West is too afraid of appearing to be insular and inflexible to stand up and say "No, that is not how things will be done in this country", firmly and politely. Americans in particular have cowered behind PC terms in order to not offend other peoples all the while not understanding that being PC is not the same as being polite or considerate nor realizing that some peoples will be offended no matter how PC, polite or considerate you are or try to be.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Granted they are religious fanatics but it goes much deeper than that.

The basis for most all the problems we have with the Muslim world boils down two things, support for Israel and Oil. We are not hated because of who we are, but rather for what we do. Our ventures into the Middle East have been costly both in dollars and human lives. Had our intrusion into the Arab world been limited to the Israeli issue, our relations would have improved with time. Our actions to keep oil flowing to the west and out of the hands of Russia clearly made us the enemy to many Muslims.

First we instigated a government overflow in 1953 in Iran putting the Shaw in power. For 25 years we supported a dictatorship in Iran giving them 1.2 billion dollars to keep the oil flowing to the west until the people of Iran revolted and put the Ayatollah in power.

We then helped Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran. Then we turned on Saddam and attacked when he threatens the flow oil by invading Kuwait. Tens years later we attacked Iraq again because they had WMDs which turned out to be bogus. During the war we killed over 100,000 civilians and embarrass ourselves with the Abagrave prison scandal and the lack of evidence of WMDs.

In Afghanistan, we supported the Afghans against Russia to prevent Russian from controlling a proposed oil pipeline across Afghanistan. Then we walked out of Afghanistan leaving it to the Taliban. Today we are fighting against those that we previously supported.

In Guantanamo, we hold hundreds of accused terrorist without trial, which is contrary to our claims we make about American justice.

During this entire foreign policy debacle, we bought off the Saudi royal family with arms deals and defense agreements, which has alienates them and us in the Middle East.

If you want to know why Islamic terrorist attack us, you need only to look at 60 years of American foreign policy in the Middle East which has been a disaster. The solution is painful but very simple. GET THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST BY BECOMING ENERGY INDEPENDENT.

I'll check to see if anyone actually addressed any points in your post.

I doubt it

 

[Flopper]

Al-Qa'idah absolutely hates Russia for what they've done in Chechnya. I share that sentiment insofar as I detest the Russian military and government. The people I don't blame.

I'm detecting a pattern here, justified hatred. "We wouldn't have attacked if you guys hadn't kicked our asses in [insert situation]."

Do you know anything about what has happened in the Caucasus over the past 20 years? Serious question.

Not really, but I think you're going to tell me.

 

[Flopper]

In response to the thread title, there is this excerpt from the article "Is Jihad Fard Kifaya or Fard Ayn?" posted on islamicemerate.com written by Ibn Nuhaas. I'd post a link, however, I'm unable to at the present time due to not having enough posts.

"This is all regarding the Jihad, which is Kifayah - a collective duty - (starting war with the non-believers on their territory). But if the enemy enters the Muslim land, or even approaches it and masses on its borders, even if they do not actually enter it, and their armies are double the size of that of the Muslims or less, then Jihad becomes mandatory on each and every individual. Then, the slave leaves without the permission of the master, the woman without the permission of her husband (if she has the strength to fight according to the stronger opinion), the son without the permission of the parents, and the one indebt without the permission of the lender. All of the above stated is the opinion of Imam Malik, Ahmad, and Abu Hanifah (in addition to the madhab of the author which is Shafi’i)."

The first sentence in the above quote makes it fairly clear as to why they feel they can attack any country made up of "unbelievers". The rest explains rather well the reason they're fighting "unbelievers" in their own lands. They feel they not only have the right, but that they're commanded/obligated to.

Please don't get the idea that I find their justifications/reasons/ideals acceptable, because I don't. I have nothing good to say about a religion that treats people (believers as well as unbelievers) the way Islam does.

I think the most relevant part of this quote is "But if the enemy enters the Muslim land,"

Flopper, I believe you missed the parenthetical statement in the first sentence of the article I quoted. "This is all regarding the Jihad, which is Kifayah - a collective duty -*(starting war with the non-believers on their territory)*" Any country will react to being invaded and feel justified in reacting to such an invasion. Islam is not a country, it is a religion. That parenthetical statement is indicative of the goals of Islam. One of the difficulties with Islam is that Muslims feel that wherever they are is their country, which means that no matter where they are, they're being invaded. And before people jump on me, yes I'm aware that there are countries where Islam is the rule of the land. This does not in any way diminish the fact that Islam is a religion, practiced in many countries throughout the world and not just an area defined on a map.

One thing that I've seen consistently stated by Muslims of all levels of enthusiasm is that non-believers are inferior to Muslims and deserve whatever they get in the way of disrespect from Muslims. As far as I can tell, this is done for one of two reasons - turn the unbeliever into a believer or force them out. The consistent insistence on Sharia Law being adopted is an excellent example of that, and most of the West is too afraid of appearing to be insular and inflexible to stand up and say "No, that is not how things will be done in this country", firmly and politely. Americans in particular have cowered behind PC terms in order to not offend other peoples all the while not understanding that being PC is not the same as being polite or considerate nor realizing that some peoples will be offended no matter how PC, polite or considerate you are or try to be.

I understand your point, but I do not necessarily agree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Al-Qa'idah absolutely hates Russia for what they've done in Chechnya. I share that sentiment insofar as I detest the Russian military and government. The people I don't blame.

I'm detecting a pattern here, justified hatred. "We wouldn't have attacked if you guys hadn't kicked our asses in [insert situation]."

Do you know anything about what has happened in the Caucasus over the past 20 years? Serious question.

Doesn't really matter, does it? The US was wrong because we didn't interfere, and we were also wrong because we did. Your logic leaves us fucked, so we should just lay down and die.