Republican nominations - Page 289

On January 17 2012 23:41 Zalithian wrote:
I don't know about you guys personally, but if I ever see a rich man on TV that I've never met in my life.. I get a strong urge to throw my life away to kill him. Now if that same rich guy came over to my house and took it over, then killed my daughter, well, that wouldn't change anything. I have an innately strong hatred for rich people who live thousands of miles away that have little to no impact on my life.

On January 17 2012 23:49 radscorpion9 wrote:


I edited out my former reply where I took this seriously. I'm assuming you're making fun of someone

In other news Jon Huntsman has dropped out of the race! The little support he did have he redirected towards Romney.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/16/politics/huntsman-what-happened/index.html

Edit: I'm so proud. I'm a marine!! :D

On January 17 2012 21:46 DoubleReed wrote:Actually this is very wrong. It seems to be a serious claim that people really don't seem to get. Al Qaeda's objective has been explicitly stated to rid US presence in the middle east. In fact, most suicide terrorism (over 95%!) cases have been found to be because of territorial reasons rather than religious ones.

Saying terrorism is a "fault" of US policy is probably not how I would phrase it. I would probably say that that is clearly the reasoning behind terrorist groups' hatred of the US. It really is a direct consequence. Military presence in Saudi Arabia and Israel etc.

Obviously, Al Qaeda is the bad guy, and I would never suggest otherwise. But if you think US foreign policy is not the cause of terrorism then you're just wrong. That goes against everything that Al Qaeda and multiple terrorist groups have all explicitly and repeatedly said what their reasonings are. If you think they aren't being defensive then I think you need to consider the idea that perhaps you are the one being naive.

Everything Ron Paul has said regarding this is actually backed up with the facts. Sorry.

I'm glad we've gone back to the Karl Rove school of IR discussion. Another quality post, zalz.

The entire mechanism of terrorism is extremely complicated and fueled by politics, religion and culture, but the main goals of AQ and every major group are political and secular responses. I'm not sure what you're classifying as a terrorist organization, but the creations of at least several major ones are purely the result of a blowback effect. How is that not responsive? There is no underlying push to create an empire, besides a few pieces of propaganda. Where are you getting this crap from?

Not even the realists like Mearsheimer or any other conservative branch of IR are in line with what you said. It's strictly a neo-conservative position.

You have no clue what a real terrorist is. The US creates terrorist when we bomb their country and they want revenge on us. It's called blowback son.

It's not obvious what the stated goals of terrorists are because us Americans are fed this kind of misinformation. Many people think most suicide terrorism is due to Islam, and this just isn't true.

On January 18 2012 00:11 zalz wrote:


Over 95%? Well that doesn't sound like a made up statistic at all. I would like to have a source for that. I am mostly interested in how one defines when it is territorial or relgious when the two are connected at the hip. The establishment of a caliphate for example requires both religion and territory.

Sure, Al-Qaeda wants to get rid of the US from middle-eastern countries. In fact they want every nation in the world to get the hell out of the middle-east.

But that isn't the main objective. It is but a step towards their actuall goal. Re-forming the muslim caliphate. They themselves have stated it over and over. This is why they fight. They themselves say it countless times but we are supposed to not take them seriously? Because...well there isn't really a reason not to take them serious on it, we know they are insane enough to actually consider that a viable goal.

People try to make them out to be more human then they really are. We can understand if they were "fighting back" against America, but the truth is they aren't. They are on the offensive against America and more or less the entire muslim world. They are not reactionairy because they did not form to fight America out of the middle-east, they were formed to establish a caliphate and fighting America is step #1.



That depends on the terrorist group in question. Al-Qaeda most definitly doesn't consider fighting America as it's primairy task. The establishment of a caliphate is their main goal by their own admission. This argument that they are formed to fight America is entirely based on the idea that we shouldn't take their own words seriously.



Their main goal is forming a muslim caliphate. This is by their own admission.

I don't see what evidence you have to suggest that leading Al-Qaeda officials are lying when they say they want to form a caliphate. On what basis are they not serious?

If you accept the idea that you can just randomly disregard comments as lies then you will never have to change your opinion. Anything they say that doesn't match the image you have of them, you can call a lie. If they say what you want to hear, it's the truth, if they say what you don't want to hear, it's a lie? So you always hear what you want to hear...

-----------------------------------------------------



Even mods seem hard pressed to keep themselves in check.



The entire mechanism of terrorism is extremely complicated BUT! So i can't offer up this objective of Al-Qaeda because it is to "simple" but you proceed to reduce it to just as simple a proposition.

"There is no underlying push to create an empire"

But by your own admission "besides a few pieces of propaganda" which is an odd way of saying "by admission of Al-Qaeda leading officials."

In what way is there no underlying push to create an empire? They are fighting to remove American influence from the region. They want to form a giant muslim caliphate, devoid of any non-muslim influences. How is removing America from the region not completly in line with how they would go about it?

America is the largest non-muslim influence in the region. Ofcourse their main goal would be to terminate American influence. First you purge the outside influence, then you unify the area. And a caliphate was born.



But that isn't the issue.

Leading Al-Qaeda officials agree with me that their goal is to form a caliphate. The notion that we can leave them alone and the problem will go away is ridiculous. They are by their very founding on the offensive. After America will follow the middle-east and other muslim majority regions.

----------------------------------------------------



Blowback is born from the idea that these people are like you and me. They saw the evil American empire destroy their homes and now they want to fight back. This is distinctly not true.

"We bomb their country and they want revenge on us"

Yes. I am sure all those shia muslims in Iraq ran straight into the arms of Al-Qaeda. Shia muslims are heretics in the eyes of Al-Qaeda. They don't get along all that great.

The Iraqi's that honestly wanted to fight the US joined the insurgents. Not exactly terrorists either.

--------------------------------------------------------



I like how despite not being American and as a result never watching any serious ammount of American news i am still brainwashed by "Teh Media!"


But i must say, it seems almost impossible to hold a debate. Even if i quote a million Al-Qaeda officals stating that they want to form a caliphate, people are just going to say that these Al-Qaeda officials are lying.

On January 18 2012 00:11 zalz wrote:


Over 95%? Well that doesn't sound like a made up statistic at all. I would like to have a source for that. I am mostly interested in how one defines when it is territorial or relgious when the two are connected at the hip. The establishment of a caliphate for example requires both religion and territory.

Sure, Al-Qaeda wants to get rid of the US from middle-eastern countries. In fact they want every nation in the world to get the hell out of the middle-east.

But that isn't the main objective. It is but a step towards their actuall goal. Re-forming the muslim caliphate. They themselves have stated it over and over. This is why they fight. They themselves say it countless times but we are supposed to not take them seriously? Because...well there isn't really a reason not to take them serious on it, we know they are insane enough to actually consider that a viable goal.

People try to make them out to be more human then they really are. We can understand if they were "fighting back" against America, but the truth is they aren't. They are on the offensive against America and more or less the entire muslim world. They are not reactionairy because they did not form to fight America out of the middle-east, they were formed to establish a caliphate and fighting America is step #1.



That depends on the terrorist group in question. Al-Qaeda most definitly doesn't consider fighting America as it's primairy task. The establishment of a caliphate is their main goal by their own admission. This argument that they are formed to fight America is entirely based on the idea that we shouldn't take their own words seriously.



Their main goal is forming a muslim caliphate. This is by their own admission.

I don't see what evidence you have to suggest that leading Al-Qaeda officials are lying when they say they want to form a caliphate. On what basis are they not serious?

If you accept the idea that you can just randomly disregard comments as lies then you will never have to change your opinion. Anything they say that doesn't match the image you have of them, you can call a lie. If they say what you want to hear, it's the truth, if they say what you don't want to hear, it's a lie? So you always hear what you want to hear...

-----------------------------------------------------



Even mods seem hard pressed to keep themselves in check.



The entire mechanism of terrorism is extremely complicated BUT! So i can't offer up this objective of Al-Qaeda because it is to "simple" but you proceed to reduce it to just as simple a proposition.

"There is no underlying push to create an empire"

But by your own admission "besides a few pieces of propaganda" which is an odd way of saying "by admission of Al-Qaeda leading officials."

In what way is there no underlying push to create an empire? They are fighting to remove American influence from the region. They want to form a giant muslim caliphate, devoid of any non-muslim influences. How is removing America from the region not completly in line with how they would go about it?

America is the largest non-muslim influence in the region. Ofcourse their main goal would be to terminate American influence. First you purge the outside influence, then you unify the area. And a caliphate was born.



But that isn't the issue.

Leading Al-Qaeda officials agree with me that their goal is to form a caliphate. The notion that we can leave them alone and the problem will go away is ridiculous. They are by their very founding on the offensive. After America will follow the middle-east and other muslim majority regions.

----------------------------------------------------



Blowback is born from the idea that these people are like you and me. They saw the evil American empire destroy their homes and now they want to fight back. This is distinctly not true.

"We bomb their country and they want revenge on us"

Yes. I am sure all those shia muslims in Iraq ran straight into the arms of Al-Qaeda. Shia muslims are heretics in the eyes of Al-Qaeda. They don't get along all that great.

The Iraqi's that honestly wanted to fight the US joined the insurgents. Not exactly terrorists either.

--------------------------------------------------------



I like how despite not being American and as a result never watching any serious ammount of American news i am still brainwashed by "Teh Media!"


But i must say, it seems almost impossible to hold a debate. Even if i quote a million Al-Qaeda officals stating that they want to form a caliphate, people are just going to say that these Al-Qaeda officials are lying.

You at least must concede that U.S. presence accounts for some level of recruitment. Even if the ultimate goal is caliphate, they can still recruit people based on a hate of the U.S., demanding a specific religious affiliation as an afterthought.

On January 17 2012 23:57 Zalithian wrote:


lol. Yeah. It's supposed to be a satire about how illogical it is to assume we are hated simply because we are rich/free. Obviously some people are crazy, could be brainwashed etc, but considering there's nothing in the Quran about killing Americans (that I'm aware of), and it's entirely illogical to randomly hate someone who has no impact on your life for an arbitrary reason like being rich or free. To think someone would hate you and dedicate their life for that is so nonsensical. Clearly it has nothing to do with US's continued presence in the Middle East. Besides, what is a greater cause for anger? Taking over your country, killing your children, wives, friends, etc, or being rich/free and living thousands of miles away?

On January 18 2012 01:05 billy5000 wrote:
as i'm not really into politics or anything about it as a matter of fact, i found this ron paul ad to be jaw dropping (to me at least).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLv8c2nlF0E

i would have never thought that our foreign policy seemed so invasive till now

On January 18 2012 00:57 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:You still lack understanding on how the world works. How did the USA become free again? We did it ourselves and we asked other countries for help without being forced with help...

This is Iran during the time of the Shah when it was a modern, relatively free, and a progressive nation with a blend of western and traditional values which made it a gem in Eurasia. These are a selection of photos from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

Do these people really look like terrorists to you?

And to clear things up a bit I'll give you a history lesson on what the relationship with Iran/US was during the 1950's

On January 18 2012 01:16 zalz wrote:


I have read a dozen books on Iran. I have had a fascination with the country for years now. I have a vacation planned to Teheran. I have read so much about Iran yet i am the only one in this topic that isn't acusing anyone of not knowing the situation. Yelling that someone "doesn't get it" isn't a proper debate.

But thanks, the youtube clip will teach me so much.

On January 18 2012 01:12 DoubleReed wrote:
Zalz, I highly suggest looking up Robert Pape's study. You are assuming too much about their motivations and demographics which are wrong.

For an effective strategy, the United States needs to take three important steps.

The first is decoupling Islam and terrorism. The 9/11 commission report states that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism'... it is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." While it is true that America faces a significant threat from people who identify themselves as Muslims and dress their grievances in religious terms, this does not mean that such people are perpetrators of "Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate.

The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists such as bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the United States. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who perceive the United States, and the West in general, as perpetuators of an unjust global political-economic system. As many have already noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American FINANCIAL and military complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though the United States should not accept at face value the legitimacy of al Qaeda grievances, we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots.

The third step involves ensuring the United States actively works for the promotion of human dignity. U.S. policymakers should make a concerted effort to understand the circumstances of the countries of the Muslim world that cause a sense of deprivation and humiliation among their populations, as these factors contribute to sympathy for al Qaeda's political aims. Washington conventional wisdom maintains that Muslims need to believe in an alternative vision for their economic and political future, though the vast majority of Muslims need no convincing that economic prosperity and political freedom are good things. Muslims share the same vision held by humanity everywhere - a secure future for their children and a life defined by dignity and liberty. Thus, policy makers should approach Muslims as partners on the path toward bettering livelihoods in Muslim societies.

If the United States continues to be implicated in the social, political and economic underdevelopment of much of the Muslim world, al Qaeda will continue to gain followers who are blind to everything but the perceived destructive effects of U.S. hegemony. In the end, focusing on winning the "battle of ideas" obscures our view of what must be done to prevent future terrorist attacks. The United States should recognize the true nature of the terrorist threat, identify its root causes, and partner with Muslims to eliminate them.

Anger and hatred toward the United States among Arabs and Muslims is largely driven by Washington’s policies, not by any deep-seated antipathy toward the West. The policies that have generated the most anti-Americanism include Washington’s support for Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians; the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 Gulf War; U.S. support for repressive regimes in countries like Egypt; American sanctions on Baghdad after the First Gulf War, which are estimated to have caused the deaths of about five hundred thousand Iraqi civilians; and the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Not surprisingly, President Bush and his advisers rejected this explanation of 9/11, because accepting it would effectively have been an admission that the United States bore considerable responsibility for the events of that tragic day. We would be acknowledging that it was our Middle East policies that were at the heart of it all.