• 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:
Okay, Spain's terrorist bombing was justified because Spain had coalition troops in Iraq.

And Britain's terrorist bombing was justified because Britain also has coalition troops in Iraq.

[...]

Let's hear it again, all you guys on the left: Islamist rage at the west is fueled by the Iraq invasion. They're reasonable people; if we would just stop pissing them off, they'd stop trying to commit mass murder.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that 'The Left' claimed that the Spain and UK bombings were justified? Or that terrorists/muslim extremists justified them this way? Or perhaps you're taking a play out of the Bush Admin playbook and conflating all of the above into some general category of ignorant evil-doers.
 
BPSCG said:
Let's hear it again, all you guys on the left: Islamist rage at the west is fueled by the Iraq invasion.
Click to expand...
Uh...are you saying that only left-leaning people are aware that the war in Iraq has vastly increased terrorism?
They're reasonable people; if we would just stop pissing them off, they'd stop trying to commit mass murder.
Click to expand...
Uh..terrorists are by definition not reasonable people. Who exactly do think believes they are reasonable people? Aside from tiny extremist groups, I mean.
 
BPSCG said:
So, do you believe that terrorists can be "bought off"?
Click to expand...

Not too sure what you mean by "bought off" but there is plenty of evidence over just the last 100 years that groups that use terrorist tactics may stop their terrorist activities either as a result of negotiation (including sometimes through acquiescence to at least some of their demands) with their "enemy" or simply because circumstances change. There are probably examples that show there are a myriad of other ways in which groups stop being terrorists.
 
Last edited:
DanishDynamite said:
Certainly. I assume that the phrase "bought off" means that the opponents of the terrorists give in to some or all of the terrorists' demands.
Click to expand...
What demands do you believe the opponents of Islamists would have to give in to, in order for the Islamists to agree to stop trying to kill them?
 
I don't know that giving in to terrorists' demands would work. (I, personally, wouldn't want to become Muslim, for example.)

Perhaps in addition to dealing with the terrorists who are already among us (via police or military options, for example), one additional tactic would be to attempt to change the conditions that seem to have something to do with people becoming terrorists in the first place? Today's NY Times has an article contrasting the situations of Pakistanis in this country and the UK, suggesting that conditions in the UK (less assimilation, fewer job opportunities, more overt discrimination leading to a feeling of being perceived inferior) might be one explanation for why the recently-arrested alleged terrorists came from the UK.

Or maybe not. Who knows?
 
BPSCG said:
What demands do you believe the opponents of Islamists would have to give in to, in order for the Islamists to agree to stop trying to kill them?
Click to expand...
I have no idea.

You posted in the OP the following: "Let's hear it again, all you guys on the left: Islamist rage at the west is fueled by the Iraq invasion."

Do you (personally) think that Islamist rage of the west is not fueled by the Iraq invasion?
 
DanishDynamite said:
Do you (personally) think that Islamist rage of the west is not fueled by the Iraq invasion?
Click to expand...
I think Islamist rage at the west is fueled by very much the same thing that Nazi rage against the Jews was fueled. Everything and nothing, all pretext serves as justification. But first, last, and always, their very existence.

But there are those who believe otherwise.
 
BPSCG said:
I think Islamist rage at the west is fueled by very much the same thing that Nazi rage against the Jews was fueled. Everything and nothing, all pretext serves as justification. But first, last, and always, their very existence.

But there are those who believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
Kindly answer my question. Here it is again:

Do you (personally) think that Islamist rage of the west is not fueled by the Iraq invasion?

Thanks.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Kindly answer my question. Here it is again:

Do you (personally) think that Islamist rage of the west is not fueled by the Iraq invasion?
Click to expand...
I thought I made it clear enough. Everything provokes them. Cartoons. The sweet-and-sour pork I had for lunch. The fact that you and I are alive to have this discussion.

The Iraq invasion also serves as pretext. As a tool to inflame them, it wasn't necessary, because your girlfriend's swimsuit is enough.
 
DanishDynamite, I think he did answer it, however obliquely.

I think this is yet another silly smeantic argument. Some are using the word "fuel" to mean "contribute" and others think "fuel" means "cause"

To Beeps, the Iraq War fuels terrorism in the way that tossing a 1" square of flash paper into a forest fire "fuels" the forste fire. Does the fire gain energy and thus strength from the combustion of flash paper? Sure, but so miniscule as if to be meaningless and people who want to stop forest fires by banning flash paper are being absurd.

To others, the Iraq War fuels terrorism in the way that pouring light fluid on a lit charcoal grill fuels the grill. Was the fire burning before? Yes. Is it burning a lot more intensely with the lighter fluid? Undoubtedly, and people who claim that removing the lighter fluid from the fire won't cause a lessening in flame are being ridiculous.

The question isn't whether the Iraq War "fuels" terrorism, but whether it does so like flash paper or lighter fluid. And I don't think that's a calculus capable of objective measurements.
 
BPSCG said:
I thought I made it clear enough. Everything provokes them. Cartoons. The sweet-and-sour pork I had for lunch. The fact that you and I are alive to have this discussion.

The Iraq invasion also serves as pretext. As a tool to inflame them, it wasn't necessary, because your girlfriend's swimsuit is enough.
Click to expand...
I see. Since all the factors you mention have been in play for at least 20 years, you therefore (presumably) feel that the huge increase in terrorism after the US invaded Iraq are of no significance. Right?
 
BPSCG said:
I think Islamist rage at the west is fueled by very much the same thing that Nazi rage against the Jews was fueled. Everything and nothing, all pretext serves as justification. But first, last, and always, their very existence.

But there are those who believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Congratulations!

This is first smart thing that BPSG has done in this thread and I do believe that he has reasoned it out.

- Being actively involved in the Iraq war is a rationale can make one a target for terrorist attacks,
- Being obliquely involved with Iraq War is a rationale can make one a target for terrorist attacks,
- Being perceived in any way as something counter to narrow religious dogma can make one a target for terrorist attacks,
And so on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom