|
|
Thwarted Terror Attack in Australia
By Blazed1979 2014-09-19 13:52:00
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex. Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
I'm not defaming anyone, but you are being a terrorist apologist, you're excusing their actions.
I understand history very well, I just don't twist it to sort an agenda.
Also you were the one defaming here, not me.
No I'm not. I'll go on the record for you as saying there is NO EXCUSE for their actions.
A Dr telling a cancer patient he shouldn't have smoked hasn't justified his smoking. Yet you keep doing it in every thread about a radical killing people and the other citizen's harboring them and get in a fit when people retaliate.
So I'll go on the record for outright saying you're a liar now.
Plus your analogy doesn't fit. My Analogy is meant to highlight that explaining the situation does not require any emotional connection.
You want to simplify things in the middle east and blame it on Islam.
If I explain why Islam is not to blame you call that being a terrorist apologist.
I'll go on the record as saying there is no logic or sense to 99% of the things you say, you have no stable position, are inconsistent and a prove yourself to be a hypocrite at least 3-4 times a day.
Your analogy fails even at that.
I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is. Unlike you I'm not ignorant of that reality.
There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen), and I'm anything but a hypocrite. I can certainly see how several of you would think that, but you would all be wrong.
But again with the ridiculous personal attacks, and excusing terrorists.
Islam is no more to blame for terrorists being terrorists than Einstein is for Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-19 13:54:45
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex. Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
I'm not defaming anyone, but you are being a terrorist apologist, you're excusing their actions.
I understand history very well, I just don't twist it to sort an agenda.
Also you were the one defaming here, not me.
No I'm not. I'll go on the record for you as saying there is NO EXCUSE for their actions.
A Dr telling a cancer patient he shouldn't have smoked hasn't justified his smoking. Yet you keep doing it in every thread about a radical killing people and the other citizen's harboring them and get in a fit when people retaliate.
So I'll go on the record for outright saying you're a liar now.
Plus your analogy doesn't fit. My Analogy is meant to highlight that explaining the situation does not require any emotional connection.
You want to simplify things in the middle east and blame it on Islam.
If I explain why Islam is not to blame you call that being a terrorist apologist.
I'll go on the record as saying there is no logic or sense to 99% of the things you say, you have no stable position, are inconsistent and a prove yourself to be a hypocrite at least 3-4 times a day.
Your analogy fails even at that.
I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is. Unlike you I'm not ignorant of that reality.
There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen), and I'm anything but a hypocrite. I can certainly see how several of you would think that, but you would all be wrong.
But again with the ridiculous personal attacks, and excusing terrorists. If Islam is no more to blame for terrorists being terrorists than Einstein is for Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Um... he is largely responsible for the nuclear bomb... Yet you confuse ending a war with terrorist actions, but of course you do.
 Siren.Balias
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 68
By Siren.Balias 2014-09-19 13:56:18
Fenrir.Candlejack said: »Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »What this problem needs is more sunshine and rainbows!
Heroin? Need some Super Heroin. Nope.avi!
What this, and all problems, can be solved with is alcohol!!
Now, now. Their text strictly prohibits intoxicants. And they're the truly devout. Clearly they would never partake.
Then spike their drinking water...
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4307
By Asura.Ackeronll 2014-09-19 13:58:09
Think Jetackuu needs to change his/her avatar. You can't use a robot who wants to kill all humans and be against the killing of humans.
He says he wants to, he doesn't actually want to. There's a difference :P
Episode "Decision 3012" shows that in the future Bender does in fact lead the robot uprising to kills all humans. Showing in how he tells them to scooch together to save bullets. He then promptly kills them.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-19 13:59:19
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex. Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
I'm not defaming anyone, but you are being a terrorist apologist, you're excusing their actions.
I understand history very well, I just don't twist it to sort an agenda.
Also you were the one defaming here, not me.
No I'm not. I'll go on the record for you as saying there is NO EXCUSE for their actions.
A Dr telling a cancer patient he shouldn't have smoked hasn't justified his smoking. Yet you keep doing it in every thread about a radical killing people and the other citizen's harboring them and get in a fit when people retaliate.
So I'll go on the record for outright saying you're a liar now.
Plus your analogy doesn't fit. My Analogy is meant to highlight that explaining the situation does not require any emotional connection.
You want to simplify things in the middle east and blame it on Islam.
If I explain why Islam is not to blame you call that being a terrorist apologist.
I'll go on the record as saying there is no logic or sense to 99% of the things you say, you have no stable position, are inconsistent and a prove yourself to be a hypocrite at least 3-4 times a day.
Your analogy fails even at that.
I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is. Unlike you I'm not ignorant of that reality.
There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen), and I'm anything but a hypocrite. I can certainly see how several of you would think that, but you would all be wrong.
But again with the ridiculous personal attacks, and excusing terrorists. If Islam is no more to blame for terrorists being terrorists than Einstein is for Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Um... he is largely responsible for the nuclear bomb... Yet you confuse ending a war with terrorist actions, but of course you do.
I am amused. I don't how that went over your head.
I'm wasting my time on you.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-19 13:59:32
Think Jetackuu needs to change his/her avatar. You can't use a robot who wants to kill all humans and be against the killing of humans.
He says he wants to, he doesn't actually want to. There's a difference :P
Episode "Decision 3012" shows that in the future Bender does in fact lead the robot uprising to kills all humans. Showing in how he tells them to scooch together to save bullets. He then promptly kills them.
I don't deal in hypotheticals.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-19 14:00:50
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex. Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
I'm not defaming anyone, but you are being a terrorist apologist, you're excusing their actions.
I understand history very well, I just don't twist it to sort an agenda.
Also you were the one defaming here, not me.
No I'm not. I'll go on the record for you as saying there is NO EXCUSE for their actions.
A Dr telling a cancer patient he shouldn't have smoked hasn't justified his smoking. Yet you keep doing it in every thread about a radical killing people and the other citizen's harboring them and get in a fit when people retaliate.
So I'll go on the record for outright saying you're a liar now.
Plus your analogy doesn't fit. My Analogy is meant to highlight that explaining the situation does not require any emotional connection.
You want to simplify things in the middle east and blame it on Islam.
If I explain why Islam is not to blame you call that being a terrorist apologist.
I'll go on the record as saying there is no logic or sense to 99% of the things you say, you have no stable position, are inconsistent and a prove yourself to be a hypocrite at least 3-4 times a day.
Your analogy fails even at that.
I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is. Unlike you I'm not ignorant of that reality.
There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen), and I'm anything but a hypocrite. I can certainly see how several of you would think that, but you would all be wrong.
But again with the ridiculous personal attacks, and excusing terrorists. If Islam is no more to blame for terrorists being terrorists than Einstein is for Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Um... he is largely responsible for the nuclear bomb... Yet you confuse ending a war with terrorist actions, but of course you do.
I am amused. I don't how that went over your head.
I'm wasting my time on you. Well you're partially right: you are wasting your time if you think you're going to convince me to support terrorists.
It didn't go over my head, but apparently you went over your own, and tried to reach for something and fell.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-19 14:11:03
Not entirely, while our presence there is evident, it is necessary. Yes, we have an obvious presence there. Why is it necessary again?
As to the bold: if the civilians weren't harboring and breeding terrorists then they wouldn't be targeted, so yes killing journalists is worse.
Regarding harboring: living in the same city/town/street/building is considering as harboring? That is somewhat dubious. That is assuming that information on targets is accurate/reliable, which it
rarely is. And that doesn't even cover mistargeting.
Regarding breeding: Seriously, WTF? It isn't a kennel club.
That's some Nausi dinosaur truck grenadier-grade stupid. I guess if you don't understand why it's necessary then this conversation is moot.
Not at all, their society creates them and harbors them, they're just as guilty.
Casualties happen in war, you're not going to see me cry over it. So if we kill civillians, meh.
If they kill civillians, kill them all?
That doesn't seem just a bit wrong to you? Let alone declaring war on a concept or a group of people? Let alone using military operations for what is essentially a criminal problem?
Yes, there are some significant differences between how the US operates, and how ISIS operates.
I'm not in any way condoning what ISIS has done, or will do. But this mentality of "just kill those evil ***" is pretty ISIS-like. Let alone the simple fact that we (the western world) are at least some part responsible for this group's existence, let alone its popularity and ease of finding recruits. I don't participate in being a terrorist apologist.
I don't have a problem with declaring war on scum. It doesn't bother me. However I've stated before that I don't think wiping the entire area out is the thing to do (or I'd say we just nuke the place, which to be frank has been a stance by some and even by myself before), but you cannot stop these people unless you crush them, or kill them. They will continue to do what they do until the end of time otherwise.That's pretty much their viewpoint as well. And if you don't see the problem arising from the fact that this ideal is shared...
Well, extremism takes many forms.
That is pretty much the problem and reality of the situation.
People in the west and in the middle east oversimplifying things because they're too lazy, uninvolved,following media organizations with agendas while lacking enough background knowledge to be able to make an informed decision.
Both sides. In the west its "bomb them all" "Islam is to blame" and with ISIS its "They're crusaders" "they're after our oil" "they're want to destroy islam".
I said it before, people like Jekt and many others do more for converting normal mundane people into radicals than the best ISIS propaganda.
The difference between radicalized people in Iraq and people like Jekt is that the people in Iraq have been persecuted, bombed, lived through wars... and honestly, ask yourself "how many family members and how much ***has the average ISIS recruit seen to make him/her become so radicalized".
And then ask the same question of an average American or European who is calling for the destruction of the region and spews anti-Islam hate.
The US was not invaded by Arab/Islamic Armies.
The US came to the Middle East first, like it did to every part of the world, and meddled in others' politics.
ISIS is the US's *** child and they should deal with it while leaving the rest of the world out of their hate speach and not causing a third world war.
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists.
Also: I don't want to wipe out religion, nor do I have hate, but nice persecution complex. Classic example of character defamation; anyone who disagrees with you must be on the other side. "if y'ur not with us y'ur with the tur'ists"
Didn't come to the middle east first? Do you really lack that much basic knowledge of history?
I'm not defaming anyone, but you are being a terrorist apologist, you're excusing their actions.
I understand history very well, I just don't twist it to sort an agenda.
Also you were the one defaming here, not me.
No I'm not. I'll go on the record for you as saying there is NO EXCUSE for their actions.
A Dr telling a cancer patient he shouldn't have smoked hasn't justified his smoking. Yet you keep doing it in every thread about a radical killing people and the other citizen's harboring them and get in a fit when people retaliate.
So I'll go on the record for outright saying you're a liar now.
Plus your analogy doesn't fit. My Analogy is meant to highlight that explaining the situation does not require any emotional connection.
You want to simplify things in the middle east and blame it on Islam.
If I explain why Islam is not to blame you call that being a terrorist apologist.
I'll go on the record as saying there is no logic or sense to 99% of the things you say, you have no stable position, are inconsistent and a prove yourself to be a hypocrite at least 3-4 times a day.
Your analogy fails even at that.
I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is. Unlike you I'm not ignorant of that reality.
There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen), and I'm anything but a hypocrite. I can certainly see how several of you would think that, but you would all be wrong.
But again with the ridiculous personal attacks, and excusing terrorists. If Islam is no more to blame for terrorists being terrorists than Einstein is for Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Um... he is largely responsible for the nuclear bomb... Yet you confuse ending a war with terrorist actions, but of course you do.
I am amused. I don't how that went over your head.
I'm wasting my time on you. Well you're partially right: you are wasting your time if you think you're going to convince me to support terrorists.
It didn't go over my head, but apparently you went over your own, and tried to reach for something and fell.
 Quetzalcoatl.Maldini
サーバ: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 303
By Quetzalcoatl.Maldini 2014-09-19 15:28:50
YouTube Video Placeholder
By Blazed1979 2014-09-19 15:32:16
YouTube Video Placeholder
 Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-09-19 21:11:33
The list of reasons as to why you have me pegged wrong is so long, but you're a terrorist apologist, so I don't really care.
...
Stop trying to rewrite history so you can support the terrorists. 
You realize that nothing said here (so far) is apologist?
Not a single person has said that ISIS is right for what they are doing.
We didn't come to the middle east first, that's an outright lie. What exactly do you mean that the US didn't come to the middle east first? As in, first among other countries? First, as in we didn't do anything in the middle east until after Sept 11?
The first, you can have an argument for (although it doesn't help much, as other western countries have also treated the area poorly); for the latter, that just plain incorrect.
There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen) You probably don't want to use absolute terms, because they are rarely true.
Your arguments to date in this conversation are neither logical, nor sensible. Frankly, they hearken more to the Fox News-esque style of "argument" than an actual, factual discussion.
But again with the ridiculous personal attacks, and excusing terrorists. Again, not a single person has excused terrorists. Saying that they actually have some basis for greiviences does not excuse their actions. Refusing to acknowledge that does nothing more than perpetuate the problem.
Constantly repeating this will not make it any more true.
This mentality is frankly extremely similar to the entire "if you aren't for the war, you are against America" used in the last invasion of Iraq.
I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is. Unlike you I'm not ignorant of that reality If it wasn't Islam, there would be another justification or belief structure (not necessarily religious in nature) used. There is plenty of historical evidence to back that up.
There are estimated to be about 1.6 billion muslims in the world. The armed forces for ISIS, last I am aware of, is less than 100k.
I don't particularly care for religions. Personally, I believe that the current monothesitic structures are a plague upon mankind, and that we would be better off without them.
Yes, they took the existing religous power structure and corrupted it. That's not anything new. But blaming a religion for what is pretty much not a religious problem (recent wars, unrest, power vacuums, assassinations (sorry, targeted killings), lack of redress for greiviences, support/training of insurgents, and general ***) smacks of a dangerous lack of insight as to what the actual cause of the problem is.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 00:28:28
The word is accurate and I know very well what it means. You both keep trying to excuse them and lay the blame elsewhere when they're terrorists, the blame lies with them>
I meant combat wise, and no we didn't cause conflict in the middle east until after we were assaulted (granted it's been decades, but still).
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. But considering you're both terrorist apologists, I don't expect you ever to come to that understanding.
You're the one who doesn't understand the word then, they have no basis, as that would mean they have excuses and you're excusing them, point blank you're trying to blame somebody else for their actions, in saying they're somehow right for what they do. It's quite disgusting, and there's no basis for what they do, despite what you think.
Right back at you with the saying you're not an apologist.
The "mentality" isn't similar at all, but again, you won't see that.
I don't disagree with saying the leaders wouldn't use something else, but that doesn't change the point. It's irrelevant as to the number or %.
We would be better off without them in this day and age.
They didn't corrupt it, it was already corrupt, and I'm not blaming a religion. What you believe the cause of the problem is and what the cause of the problem is are two very different things, especially if you keep thinking the US attacked them first.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-20 02:18:40
On today's episode of FFXIAH P&R, watch as Milamber and Jetackuu hold 9 different arguments at the same time! Will they ever come to a consensus, or will hijinks ensue?
Today's guest stars include Don Knotts and the Harlem Globetrotters!
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-09-20 03:10:36
I meant combat wise, and no we didn't cause conflict in the middle east until after we were assaulted (granted it's been decades, but still). ***.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. No, you have not provided any yet facts, nor any particularly logical arguments grounded in a factual basis. Emotions, yes. Facts? Where?
The word is accurate and I know very well what it means. You both keep trying to excuse them and lay the blame elsewhere when they're terrorists, the blame lies with them>
But considering you're both terrorist apologists, I don't expect you ever to come to that understanding.
You're the one who doesn't understand the word then, they have no basis, as that would mean they have excuses and you're excusing them, point blank you're trying to blame somebody else for their actions, in saying they're somehow right for what they do. It's quite disgusting, and there's no basis for what they do, despite what you think. Then you need to read where people have explicitly stated that they are not excusing, condoning or otherwise defending ISIS in particular, or terrorism in general.
And in order to short circuit this entire damn discussion:
Oxford said: Apologist
A person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial:
an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s Saying simply that western society plays a non-insignificant role in the fact that they exist and have power isn't excusing, condoning or otherwise defending them.
I don't disagree with saying the leaders wouldn't use something else, but that doesn't change the point. It's irrelevant as to the number or %. Which point would that be? And percentage of the total number of followers is absolutely relevant when you use a religion as a basis for blame.
They didn't corrupt it, it was already corrupt, and I'm not blaming a religion. How was it already corrupt? How has it changed in the past century, 50 years, 10 years? And not blaming a religion? I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is What you believe the cause of the problem is and what the cause of the problem is are two very different things, especially if you keep thinking the US attacked them first. I'll perfectly admit what I believe is the cause of the problem, and what the actual cause of the problem may very well be different.
What would you say the is cause of the problem? Because "they are terrorists because they are terrorists" isn't a cause. Neither is "they are breeding terrorists". They people who have been radicalized, and extremized. Well yes, pretty much by definition. So how has it been possible for so many to be radicalized?
Why would they be radicalized? Because doing so gave someone more power. Why were they able to gain such a significant power base in such a limited time? When existing power structures are toppled, you don't necessarily get to choose how the new ones get built up.
[+]
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini
サーバ: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 303
By Quetzalcoatl.Maldini 2014-09-20 06:52:31
because they are terrorists because they are terrorists"
I laughed a bit more than I should have at this. But it accurately describes Jekt's analysis on the middle east.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 06:59:11
I like how someone who is religious(myself) and someone who is not a fan of religion, like Milamber, can agree on certain things and can advance or alter our positions through conversation and debate on the things we disagree on.
But with Jekt its like talking to the same rerun of a FOX news broadcast. No matter what one says to him, it will have no consequence on their opinion or thought process. Jekt you are literally just repeating yourself over and over again regardless of what information is presented to you.
I will say this ONE LAST FINAL TIME - analyzing the circumstances and situations on the ground that lead to the current reality is not being an apologist. If anyone is serious about defeating terrorism, and not perpetuating it and giving organizations like ISIS recruitment fuel, then the causes and effects need to be understood.
Would you call a Detective or an investigator an apologist for establishing a murderer's motive?
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini
サーバ: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 303
By Quetzalcoatl.Maldini 2014-09-20 07:04:23
I like how someone who is religious(myself) and someone who is not a fan of religion, like Milamber, can agree on certain things and can advance or alter our positions through conversation and debate on the things we disagree on.
But with Jekt its like talking to the same rerun of a FOX news broadcast. No matter what one says to him, it will have no consequence on their opinion or thought process. Jekt you are literally just repeating yourself over and over again regardless of what information is presented to you.
I will say this ONE LAST FINAL TIME - analyzing the circumstances and situations on the ground that lead to the current reality is not being an apologist. If anyone is serious about defeating terrorism, and not perpetuating it and giving organizations like ISIS recruitment fuel, then the causes and effects need to be understood.
Would you call a Detective or an investigator an apologist for establishing a murderer's motive? Actually, using terms like "terrorist" to simplify the grouping of people who are at odds with oneself is the root problem.
If people started actually referring to the groups by their actual names it would simplify the matter a lot more than just saying "yar t'urists".
Refer to ISIS as ISIS, Hezbullah as Hezbullah, Al Qaeda as al Qaeda and Hamas as Hamas.
 Valefor.Sehachan
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2014-09-20 07:12:45
Trying to shy away from the ongoing discussion, but would like to point out one minor thing There's logic and sense in everything I say This isn't actually a good point for..well, anything.
And that is because every single person on this planet believe to be logical when speaking or acting in any situation. It's the brain's self-preservation of sanity. Even if you do or say something extremely dumb your brain will think it acted according to logic(at best you'd regret it later thinking about it).
However, even if we believe to be following a perfect pattern, it doesn't mean we're actually right. Other people can find holes in the scheme(or others can fail to see the full structure and falsely criticize it).
So what I'm trying to say is: thinking of being logical is absolutely normal, we all do; but that doesn't make you necessarily right.
[+]
Valefor.Rawry
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Valefor.Rawry 2014-09-20 07:13:37
Also honest question: but aren't Blazed and Maldini the same person? Always thought one was a sock account lol.
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4415
By Cerberus.Senkyuutai 2014-09-20 07:18:57
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »I like how someone who is religious(myself) and someone who is not a fan of religion, like Milamber, can agree on certain things and can advance or alter our positions through conversation and debate on the things we disagree on.
But with Jekt its like talking to the same rerun of a FOX news broadcast. No matter what one says to him, it will have no consequence on their opinion or thought process. Jekt you are literally just repeating yourself over and over again regardless of what information is presented to you.
I will say this ONE LAST FINAL TIME - analyzing the circumstances and situations on the ground that lead to the current reality is not being an apologist. If anyone is serious about defeating terrorism, and not perpetuating it and giving organizations like ISIS recruitment fuel, then the causes and effects need to be understood.
Would you call a Detective or an investigator an apologist for establishing a murderer's motive? Actually, using terms like "terrorist" to simplify the grouping of people who are at odds with oneself is the root problem.
If people started actually referring to the groups by their actual names it would simplify the matter a lot more than just saying "yar t'urists".
Refer to ISIS as ISIS, Hezbullah as Hezbullah, Al Qaeda as al Qaeda and Hamas as Hamas. It's all about buzzwords, it has no effect if you use names.
Al Qaeda had to be made into a synonym of terrotists in order to be used all the time. Same is being done for ISIS. Even if you use their names instead of terrorists, they're merely synonyms, so it's same ***, different smell.
I remember in the 90's when I learned what terrorists meant and it was just shocking how people would label groups or people as terrorists for literally any reason. Much like Jetackuu is doing now. But hey, what else would you expect from the core of the populace that is spoonfed buzzwords and their own thoughts?
The threads about middle East are really interesting on this website. They really expose people as frauds, and when it's done (usually within 2 pages of someone posting), it is 10+ pages of delusional rant, over and over, repeating themselves hoping for something to change. Insanity.
[+]
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 07:25:37
Also honest question: but aren't Blazed and Maldini the same person? Always thought one was a sock account lol. Brothers. Not same person by any means, and not twins either.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 07:28:24
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »I like how someone who is religious(myself) and someone who is not a fan of religion, like Milamber, can agree on certain things and can advance or alter our positions through conversation and debate on the things we disagree on.
But with Jekt its like talking to the same rerun of a FOX news broadcast. No matter what one says to him, it will have no consequence on their opinion or thought process. Jekt you are literally just repeating yourself over and over again regardless of what information is presented to you.
I will say this ONE LAST FINAL TIME - analyzing the circumstances and situations on the ground that lead to the current reality is not being an apologist. If anyone is serious about defeating terrorism, and not perpetuating it and giving organizations like ISIS recruitment fuel, then the causes and effects need to be understood.
Would you call a Detective or an investigator an apologist for establishing a murderer's motive? Actually, using terms like "terrorist" to simplify the grouping of people who are at odds with oneself is the root problem.
If people started actually referring to the groups by their actual names it would simplify the matter a lot more than just saying "yar t'urists".
Refer to ISIS as ISIS, Hezbullah as Hezbullah, Al Qaeda as al Qaeda and Hamas as Hamas. It's all about buzzwords, it has no effect if you use names.
Al Qaeda had to be made into a synonym of terrotists in order to be used all the time. Same is being done for ISIS. Even if you use their names instead of terrorists, they're merely synonyms, so it's same ***, different smell.
I remember in the 90's when I learned what terrorists meant and it was just shocking how people would label groups or people as terrorists for literally any reason. Much like Jetackuu is doing now. But hey, what else would you expect from the core of the populace that is spoonfed buzzwords and their own thoughts?
The threads about middle East are really interesting on this website. They really expose people as frauds, and when it's done (usually within 2 pages of someone posting), it is 10+ pages of delusional rant, over and over, repeating themselves hoping for something to change. Insanity.
I'd like to think that the time I spend responding to some of the misinformed at least puts a dent or crack in their wall. I don't do it out of insanity, although at times I think some will drive me there with the level of ignorance they posses.
On Ignorance: Some actually think that the US never meddled in other nations affairs and that the situation in the middle east is an intrinsic characteristic of the region. That's more or less racism and prejudice- the implication being Arabs and Asians are just violent people.
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini
サーバ: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 303
By Quetzalcoatl.Maldini 2014-09-20 07:31:56
Also honest question: but aren't Blazed and Maldini the same person? Always thought one was a sock account lol. I am Offended.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-20 07:33:53
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »I laughed a bit more than I should have at this. But it accurately describes Jekt's analysis on the middle east. But with Jekt its like talking to the same rerun of a FOX news broadcast. No matter what one says to him, it will have no consequence on their opinion or thought process. Jekt you are literally just repeating yourself over and over again regardless of what information is presented to you.
It honestly took me a minute to figure out who in the world "Jekt" was. I assume you're referring to the person everyone else refers to as "Jet" since it makes more sense.
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini
サーバ: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 303
By Quetzalcoatl.Maldini 2014-09-20 07:48:44
I blame Prime. He misspellt it first.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 07:53:39
Iran... I can't make this ***up...
YouTube Video Placeholder
 Leviathan.Xsoahc
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 107
By Leviathan.Xsoahc 2014-09-20 09:12:35
91 lashes will whip that vulgarity out of you!
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-09-20 09:15:13
Iran... I can't make this ***up...
YouTube Video Placeholder
Iran or Saudi Arabia it doesn't really even matter.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 10:18:54
I meant combat wise, and no we didn't cause conflict in the middle east until after we were assaulted (granted it's been decades, but still). ***.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. No, you have not provided any yet facts, nor any particularly logical arguments grounded in a factual basis. Emotions, yes. Facts? Where?
The word is accurate and I know very well what it means. You both keep trying to excuse them and lay the blame elsewhere when they're terrorists, the blame lies with them>
But considering you're both terrorist apologists, I don't expect you ever to come to that understanding.
You're the one who doesn't understand the word then, they have no basis, as that would mean they have excuses and you're excusing them, point blank you're trying to blame somebody else for their actions, in saying they're somehow right for what they do. It's quite disgusting, and there's no basis for what they do, despite what you think. Then you need to read where people have explicitly stated that they are not excusing, condoning or otherwise defending ISIS in particular, or terrorism in general.
And in order to short circuit this entire damn discussion:
Oxford said: Apologist
A person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial:
an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s Saying simply that western society plays a non-insignificant role in the fact that they exist and have power isn't excusing, condoning or otherwise defending them.
I don't disagree with saying the leaders wouldn't use something else, but that doesn't change the point. It's irrelevant as to the number or %. Which point would that be? And percentage of the total number of followers is absolutely relevant when you use a religion as a basis for blame.
They didn't corrupt it, it was already corrupt, and I'm not blaming a religion. How was it already corrupt? How has it changed in the past century, 50 years, 10 years? And not blaming a religion? I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is What you believe the cause of the problem is and what the cause of the problem is are two very different things, especially if you keep thinking the US attacked them first. I'll perfectly admit what I believe is the cause of the problem, and what the actual cause of the problem may very well be different.
What would you say the is cause of the problem? Because "they are terrorists because they are terrorists" isn't a cause. Neither is "they are breeding terrorists". They people who have been radicalized, and extremized. Well yes, pretty much by definition. So how has it been possible for so many to be radicalized?
Why would they be radicalized? Because doing so gave someone more power. Why were they able to gain such a significant power base in such a limited time? When existing power structures are toppled, you don't necessarily get to choose how the new ones get built up.
Thank you for proving my point and yourself wrong at the same time, until Reagan we didn't involve in combat, and we were attacked several times before then.
I state in known facts, I can't help it if you and the other terrorists apologists don't understand history or current events properly, no emotion, but that's apparently what you guys work with.
Yes, your words are conflicting, you can say you're not but right after (or before) you were doing just that, it's lunacy.
It is, and not to mention an inaccurate statement.
Here's where you don't understand, I don't blame the religion for the entire thing, but it does hold some responsibility, and again the numbers are irrelevant when the doctrine itself supports it.
Any religion promoting the genocide of non-believers (not to mention a crap ton of other atrocities, is by default corrupt), that hasn't changed at all.
You have a bunch of radicals who are brought in under the belief that America and it's freedoms are a slight against god and must be destroyed, along with twisting the counter assaults to the other radicals actions being used as excuses to recruit members, this is like the ***where people keep blaming Israel for the dead children in Gaza when the terrorists purposely line it up for them to die like that to use it as ammunition, and unlike you all I won't fall for it.
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »because they are terrorists because they are terrorists"
I laughed a bit more than I should have at this. But it accurately describes Jekt's analysis on the middle east.
God damn you guys are stupid, can't even get a name right.
I like how someone who is religious(myself) and someone who is not a fan of religion, like Milamber, can agree on certain things and can advance or alter our positions through conversation and debate on the things we disagree on.
But with Jekt its like talking to the same rerun of a FOX news broadcast. No matter what one says to him, it will have no consequence on their opinion or thought process. Jekt you are literally just repeating yourself over and over again regardless of what information is presented to you.
I will say this ONE LAST FINAL TIME - analyzing the circumstances and situations on the ground that lead to the current reality is not being an apologist. If anyone is serious about defeating terrorism, and not perpetuating it and giving organizations like ISIS recruitment fuel, then the causes and effects need to be understood.
Would you call a Detective or an investigator an apologist for establishing a murderer's motive?
When somebody presents a good argument (which to Mil's defense, he actually does) I'll actually give it a whirl, you however don't provoke any higher level thought at all.
You speak of fox and it's tool's, yet you don't realize that you yourself are a tool.
I'll say this again: you are being an apologist, and your analysis is wholey inaccurate, if not an elaborate lie to gain support, it's ludicrous.
Trying to shy away from the ongoing discussion, but would like to point out one minor thing There's logic and sense in everything I say This isn't actually a good point for..well, anything.
And that is because every single person on this planet believe to be logical when speaking or acting in any situation. It's the brain's self-preservation of sanity. Even if you do or say something extremely dumb your brain will think it acted according to logic(at best you'd regret it later thinking about it).
However, even if we believe to be following a perfect pattern, it doesn't mean we're actually right. Other people can find holes in the scheme(or others can fail to see the full structure and falsely criticize it).
So what I'm trying to say is: thinking of being logical is absolutely normal, we all do; but that doesn't make you necessarily right.
I didn't say personal logic, I said actual logic, I'm well aware of the difference, and know how to discern between the two. But you're right in one thing, logical deductions aren't necessarily accurate ones. I'll even admit Mil's logic is near flawless, but his premises need work. If you're working with bad data, well that's all that can be expected.
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »I remember in the 90's when I learned what terrorists meant and it was just shocking how people would label groups or people as terrorists for literally any reason. Much like Jetackuu is doing now. But hey, what else would you expect from the core of the populace that is spoonfed buzzwords and their own thoughts? lolwhat? When a group uses fear to perpetrate their political goals (as these have) they are terrorists, that's textbook definition.
As to the other thing: lol'd.
I'd like to think that the time I spend responding to some of the misinformed at least puts a dent or crack in their wall. I don't do it out of insanity, although at times I think some will drive me there with the level of ignorance they posses.
On Ignorance: Some actually think that the US never meddled in other nations affairs and that the situation in the middle east is an intrinsic characteristic of the region. That's more or less racism and prejudice- the implication being Arabs and Asians are just violent people.
Talk about levels of ignorance...
I never said we never melded in other nation's affairs, we have, and way too much. But to say that the US wasn't attacked before we attacked them is an outright lie.
As to the bold: I have never asserted such a thing, nor would ever. Violence is however a human trait, as well as war, we're a disgusting people.
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »I laughed a bit more than I should have at this. But it accurately describes Jekt's analysis on the middle east. But with Jekt its like talking to the same rerun of a FOX news broadcast. No matter what one says to him, it will have no consequence on their opinion or thought process. Jekt you are literally just repeating yourself over and over again regardless of what information is presented to you.
It honestly took me a minute to figure out who in the world "Jekt" was. I assume you're referring to the person everyone else refers to as "Jet" since it makes more sense. ^
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-09-20 11:33:15
Thank you for proving my point and yourself wrong at the same time, until Reagan we didn't involve in combat, and we were attacked several times before then. What?
The US was involved in covert action in the middle east when the CIA was established.
Did we overtly invade? No.
Did we manipulate, kill or otherwise try to control the situation? Yes.
Most Some of those documents have been declassified and this is well known
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/16/the-great-game-and-the-cia-shaped-the-modern-middle-east
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116108/hugh-wilfords-americas-great-game-reviewed-frederick-deknatel
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
CIA said: that TPAJAX got the CIA into the regime-change business for good—similar efforts would soon follow in Guatemala, Indonesia, and Cuba—but that the Agency has had little success at that enterprise, while bringing itself and the United States more political ill will, and breeding more untoward results, than any other of its activities.14 Most of the CIA's acknowledged efforts of this sort have shown that Washington has been more interested in strongman rule in the Middle East and elsewhere than in encouraging democracy. The result is a credibility problem that accompanied American troops into Iraq and continues to plague them as the United States prepares to hand over sovereignty to local authorities. All the Shah's Men helps clarify why, when many Iraqis heard President George Bush concede that "[s]ixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe,"15 they may have reacted with more than a little skepticism.
The New Zealand Herald said: Gruesome execution plot at the heart of terror raids
A plot to behead a random member of the public in Sydney has been thwarted by the biggest anti-terror police raids Australia has seen, with one man charged over the plan to "horrify" the community.
Omarjan Azari, 22, who was remanded in custody at Central Local Court, allegedly conspired with Mohammad Baryalei, the most senior Australian member of Isis (Islamic State) to commit the terror act.
Prosecutor Michael Allnutt told the court that Azari was accused of plans designed to "shock" and "horrify" the community.
The plan involved the "random selection of persons to rather gruesomely execute", he said.
Last night a heavy police presence was expected at a snap protest in Sydney's west against the raids. The protest, promoted under a banner featuring the hardline organisation Hizb Ut-Tahrir, called on the Muslim community to "stand as one" against "government aggression" at Lakemba.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who was briefed before raids on Wednesday night, indicated intelligence showed public beheadings were urged by leaders of Syria-based Isis.
"The exhortations, quite direct exhortations, were coming from an Australian who is apparently quite senior in [Isis] to networks of support back in Australia to conduct demonstration killings here in this country," Abbott said. "This is not just suspicion, this is intent."
Azari, from Guildford in Sydney's west, will face court again on November 13. He was one of 15 people detained during the raids which included 25 search warrants on homes and vehicles.
More than 800 New South Wales and Australian Federal Police raided properties across the suburbs of Beecroft, Bella Vista, Guildford, Merrylands, Northmead, Wentworthville, Marsfield, Westmead, Castle Hill, Revesby, Bass Hill and Regents Park.
Three more raids occurred in Queensland yesterday morning.
Australian Federal Police acting commissioner Andrew Colvin said the raids in Underwood, Logan and Mount Gravatt East southeast of Brisbane were linked to raids in the area last week in which two men were arrested and charged with terrorism-related offences.
One of the Queensland suspects, Omar Succarieh, was seeking bail.
The Sydney plot has raised comparisons with the attack on British soldier Lee Rigby, who was hacked to death on a London street by Muslim extremists last year.
It emerged yesterday that death threats against Christians outside a school and church in Sydney's west have struck fear into parents and churchgoers. Police say two men in a red hatchback hurled abuse as they drove by Maronite College of the Holy Family in Harris Park and Our Lady of Lebanon church on Wednesday. They threatened to "kill the Christians" and slaughter their children while brandishing an Isis flag, a priest said.
NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione warned against any public backlash in the wake of the dawn raids. He said more than 220 police would participate in high-profile Operation Hammerhead, covering transport hubs and important and iconic sites.
The operation followed Australia's outgoing spy chief, ASIO director David Irvine, raising the terror alert level to "high" amid fears of an attack on home soil last Friday.
Chief of Defence Mark Binskin said the defence force was constantly reviewing security at its bases and may adjust the level of security over coming days.
Australia has estimated about 60 of its citizens are fighting for the Islamic State group and Jabhat al-Nusra in Iraq and Syria. Another 15 Australian fighters had been killed, including two young suicide bombers. The Government has said it believes about 100 Australians are actively supporting extremist groups from within Australia, recruiting fighters and grooming suicide bomber candidates as well as providing funds and equipment.
Western governments are facing an uphill battle trying to squeeze the finances of Islamic State jihadists, as the extremists operate like a "mafia" in territory under their control in Syria and Iraq, experts say.
Unlike the al-Qaeda network, which has relied almost exclusively on private donations, Isis holds a large area in Syria and Iraq that allows it to generate cash from extortion, kidnapping and smuggling of both oil and antiquities, analysts say. As a result, the group's funding presents a much more difficult target for Western sanctions compared to al-Qaeda's finances, said Evan Jendruck, an analyst at IHS Jane's consultancy.
Even conservative estimates portray Isis as the world's richest extremist organisation, raking in at least a million dollars a day.
The group is "merciless in shaking down local businesses for cash and routinely forces drivers on roads under its control to pay a tax", a US intelligence official said. "Its cash-raising activities resemble those of a mafia-like organisation."
- AAP, AP, AFP
So now the ISIS is using its international volunteers to extend its reach into western nations. Awesome.
|
|
