• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Terrorists Thank Germany

BPSCG said:
When you're done with your straw man, can I borrow him? We have crows in our backyard and they're eating the tomatoes.
Click to expand...
What did you expect with the (straw man) tone you set in the OP?
 
daredelvis said:
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...
Please provide a link showing that anyone claimed otherwise. Otherwise, this is a little more straw.
All clearly it bothers some that all but the most thickheaded are seeing that France and Germany were right to oppose the invasion.
Click to expand...
And we see the Islamist world is grateful for Germany's principled opposition.
 
BPSCG said:
So you agree with Cleon, then? Iraq is not a breeding ground for new terrorists?
Click to expand...

Well, I have not seen where 'Cleon' said anything of that sort. But since you are such an incredibly smart, capable, and well educated person, then perhaps you would be kind enough to ask 'Cleon' for clarification on the thing that he did not say.

I, on the other hand, would indeed say that Iraq has become a breeding ground for new terrorists. But of course, when one is dealing with such an incredibly smart, capable, and well educated person as yourself, then one must expect such obvious facts to be noted in the manner best suited to fit your subtle and powerful logic.
 
Mephisto said:
...
So, fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here doesn't work, but you're blaming liberals who believe our WOT (in particular in Iraq) is only enraging more fanatical Muslims and aiding the terrorists?
Click to expand...

Meph,

I strongly believe that any engagement the US and its allies put forward will be used by jihadists to rally up more troops against us ... I'm sure they rely on that. Invading Iraq may certainly not have been the best plan of attack but I'm certain it is not the worst plan (e.g.; doing nothing). I'm simply saying that fighting terror and terrorists puts the fighter between a rock and a hard place -- do nothing and the terror continues, kill them and they use it to enrage more fighters. And remember, these factions are indoctrinating their youth from square one against the West. Solution?
 
Iraq has been the rallying cry for fanatical Muslims. Their rage is also fueled by Israel's defensive actions as well as the simple printing of cartoons depicting Mohammed. The simple truth of the matter is that fanatical Muslims would be enraged by virtually anything the West did or did not do. That's one of the things that makes them fanatical IMO. Were we to pull completely out of Iraq as quickly as possible, the resulting bloodshed from Shiite-Sunni violence would be considered an outrage for which the West is to blame. Sadam's mass graves are not an outrage. Mass graves dug long after we leave will be. If we stay for (fill in period of time that suits you) all violence regardless of who is killed and by whom will be considered an outrage and, of course, the fault of the West, the U.S., the U.K., Zionists etc....

We only need to look at the completely different situation of Venezuela. Chavez continues to be outraged at the impending U.S. invasion. An invasion that is news to the rest of the world but, as long as it focuses the attention of Venezuelans away from the Chavez government, is immenent as far as he's concerned.

Here's a prediction: Whatever action or non action the West takes with regard to the Iranian nuclear situation will be considered an outrage.
 
zenith-nadir said:
That is a rationalization I find hard to swallow since there was terrorism prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Al Qaeda attacked and exsisted prior to the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, Hezbollah attacked and exsisted prior to the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, Hamas attacked and exsisted prior to the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, the PLO attacked and exsisted prior to the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, Jemaa Islamia attacked and exsisted prior to the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, Black September attacked and exsisted prior to the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, Abu Nidal attacked and exsisted prior to the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan....the list is long.

I can agree that the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan is today's rallying cry for the jihadists, but it does not fuel anything, for the fuel, (Islamic extremism), and the fire, (organized islamic terror groups), were operational before America set one foot in Iraq & Afghanistan. "Iraq & Afghanistan" are just the excuse du jour for the Islamic fascists, yesterday it was the "plight of the Palestinians", tomorrow it will be something else to rationalize the suicide bombers, the beheadings on video and the jihad.
Click to expand...

I didn't say Iraq and Afghansistan started terrorism just that they fuel it. Surely it's obvious that they do. Many (most?) Muslims see it as an example of the evil West trampling over islamic lands, warmongering, bullying and political hypocrisy. To that end it makes recruiting more and more terrorists easier - to whit it fuels terrorism. I believe the UK 7/7 bombers mentioned in notes or conversations that Iraq was one reason they did what they did. Since these two invasions we have seen more terrorism. Spain was specifically targetted due to it's involvement in Iraq. Bin Laden's lot have mentioned these conflicts.

You say they were using the excuse of palestine before. I don't think it is an excuse in their eyes. It is WHY they hate the west. And it is still a reason. Adding two more conflicts to the list has made things worse.

Just because the conflicts did not start terrorism does not logically exclude them from being fueling factors. If that were true then we could start rounding up muslims and beheading them in their 1000's and claim that any response was nothing to do with it since we did it after 9/11.
 
Originally Posted by daredelvis
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Originally Posted by BPSCG
Please provide a link showing that anyone claimed otherwise. Otherwise, this is a little more straw.
Click to expand...

At least the "Saddam didn't have ties to terrorists." meme is dead. That's progress.
 
BPSCG said:
I'm a little confused as to your position here. Do you believe that "most Islamic fanatics are against the whole west and not only countries supporting the Iraq war"? Or do you believe that "our WOT (in particular in Iraq) is only enraging more fanatical Muslims"? The two seem to be mutually contradictory.
Click to expand...

I don't see why you think they're mutually exclusive. You CAN have both you know. Certainly Islamic fanatics are being recruited in Iraq which has become a literal training ground for terrorists fighting western forces. Certainly Islamic fanatics aren't bound to only fighting in Iraq (as, "fight them there," would have you believe). So yes, I believe that Iraq is a training ground for more terrorists AND I believe that some of those terrorists being trained in Iraq might be targeting other European cities.
 
BPSCG, I noticed that when you were asked to provide a reference for your claim that "the left" claims that "Islamist rage at the west is fueled by the Iraq invasion," you changed the subject.

So do you have a reference, or not? And did you ever consider just making a point without inserting a bogus reference to what "the left" believes?
 
Mephisto said:
Who said they were reasonable people, and how is this a blow to the Left? If anything, it proves that, fight them there so we don't have to fight them here," BS isn't working.

If I remember correctly, most Islamic fanatics are against the whole west and not only countries supporting the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

You don't realize it, but you just admitted to BPSCG's point.
 
Just thinking said:
Meph,

I strongly believe that any engagement the US and its allies put forward will be used by jihadists to rally up more troops against us ... I'm sure they rely on that. Invading Iraq may certainly not have been the best plan of attack but I'm certain it is not the worst plan (e.g.; doing nothing). I'm simply saying that fighting terror and terrorists puts the fighter between a rock and a hard place -- do nothing and the terror continues, kill them and they use it to enrage more fighters. And remember, these factions are indoctrinating their youth from square one against the West. Solution?
Click to expand...

You're right regarding what jihadist will use as an excuse against us, but Iraq was a really, really bad idea. The whole world was sympathetically (although sometimes silently) behind us when we went into Afghanistan. The whole Muslim world expected us to hammer Bin Laden and his Taliban buddies, they knew we were justified and they expected our retaliation against OBL.

Iraq was a tangent that no one expected, least of all the fanatic, fundie Muslims who could now point at our actions there as proof that the U.S. DID intend to take over the middle east. Iraq is no longer secular and it's unfortunate that the one thing the warring factions in Iraq can agree upon is that they don't want us there.

I have no idea what solutions are possible. Staying the course doesn't seem productive though. I only hope we're smart enough to get out before we lose 59,000 people.
 
EBU said:
BPSCG, I noticed that when you were asked to provide a reference for your claim that "the left" claims that "Islamist rage at the west is fueled by the Iraq invasion," you changed the subject.
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, I was in the process of providing a bunch of links to leftist blogs, all based on a Google search of the term "'breeding ground for terrorists' Iraq" when I got sidetracked (goddam boss wants me to actually work...).

Anyway, Google "'breeding ground for terrorists' Iraq" and you'll get there.
 
BPSCG said:
Okay, I take it back. Our presence in Iraq does not breed new terrorists. You heard it from Cleon first.
Click to expand...

So, fresh off of spewing your strawman, you are now trying to put words in my mouth.

This must be some definition of "critical thinking" I was previously unaware of.
 
Cleon said:
...you are now trying to put words in my mouth.

This must be some definition of "critical thinking" I was previously unaware of.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Please correct my impression. Do you believe the statement, "Our presence in Iraq does not breed new terrorists," is correct or incorrect?
 
Mephisto said:
Yeah, but the difference between us is, I don't believe all Muslims are fanatics trying to kill me personally. ;)
Click to expand...
Who does? The problem is not the Muslims who aren't fanatics. It's the copious number who are.

btw. If it's any consolation, if a Muslim fanatic gets a to take a shot at you some day he might very well tell you that it's "nothing personal" right before he pulls the trigger. ;)
 
BPSCG said:
Germany, OTOH, steadfastly, loudly, and publicly opposed the Iraq invasion and supplied no troops. Before the invasion, Germany's chancellor Gerhard Schroder and France's president Jacques Chirac were the best of buddies when attacking American plans for the Iraq invasion.
Click to expand...
The current bomber is a Lebanese. Germany is planning to send troops as part of the UN peace mission into the Lebanon. Might have been the trigger for the bombing attempt.

It proves that no non-islamic group is safe, despite it's political standing and past actions. I guess that even some islamic groups are not safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom