• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects Motivated By Religion, Say Two U.S. Officials

right, 800 years ago and in an instance where religious violence was never claimed as unique to one religion. What was claimed is that modern islam contained a higher propensity for it
I higher propensity for it than what/whom?


We were actually talking about an attack done in the name of the islamic religion and for some reason you felt a need to try and shift attention to acts that happens almost a 1000 years ago, in an attempt to draw some type of equivalency between the two
Then it wasn't violence in the name of religion?


How would examples from 800 years ago, that no one denied existing, be relevant to a discussion about the Boston bombing?
A prime example of how leaders use religion as a motivator to push their people into war - and you only have to go back a couple of centuries in the West to find it at work. The Western world tends to use nationalism or philosophical ideals as a motivator for war, now.


I'm not sure how that would excuse anything, unless you are suggesting they are incapable of acting like civilized human beings. But the Chinese and Indians are not part of the western christian world, and have been able to manage fine.
Then you haven't read Indian history at all. Gandhi wasn't the only leader they had and most of the rest were very violent. I haven't read Chinese history too much but I'm pretty sure the events after WWII weren't pretty.


Why? People from the non western world manage not to shoot girls in the face for going to school everyday. They're not primitive animals
The Vietnamese had some interesting practices for natives cooperating with the US.


What does that even mean?
We don't treat Muslim prisoners the same that we would Western prisoners. I think that's pretty plain.


No one was shooting girls in the face for going to school, beating people for listening to music, and they were not fighting to establish a religious state. All rather key differences that undermine the comparison
I'm sure several thousand people roasted alive in an oven is nothing to some people. Ho Chi Minh was no angel and he wasn't Muslim and one shouldn't leave out the Kmer Rouge, either. How many were killed in Tiananmen Square? And what's four dead college students right here in the good ol' USA - they had it coming, right? And those students at UCDavis sitting on the ground sure posed a threat and deserved that face full of pepper spray they got, too. In the USSR they simply threw people in a really nasty jail for listening to the wrong music and wearing the wrong clothes, though I'm sure sometimes they let them off with a good beat down. We can go on all day about atrocities and horror but that's not really something that turns me on. Suffice it to say it's not all that uncommon and anyone who believes otherwise needs to watch the news more often or at the very least read some recent history.


A religious state is somewhat unique for any Western nation. Even Henry VIII didn't really have a religious state. Monarchs in the Western world typically ruled by force of arms instead of religion, though they were almost always sure to have religion on their side and they sure didn't mind using it as a motivator for war when they could.
 
Last edited:
So by this mentality, we should:

a) deport all muslims because they don't belong in the West. Ok.
b) allow voodoo practicing africans to chop and mutilate women and people in general because we don't treat them as western Christians and so, how can we judge them?
c) not condemn any form of religious intollerance and failure, except when it comes to Christianity.
a) In fact, there are many, many people who would have it just that way if they could. Turn over any rock in America and they'll come scurrying out.

b) If they're not doing it here it's none of our business.

c) I condemn most forms of intolerance and violence, religious or not. I'm not sure what you mean by religious failure.

Dude, you're so far out there its hard to imagine how you think. The rules are simple. Religious or not, when you come into a country as a immigrant, you obey its laws and are judged by those laws. Simple. Doesn't matter what religion you are or not.
The reason most of the world wants to emulate the west is because its the best in providing good quality of life and opportunities. You dont' see people rushing to immigrate in Egypt or Chechnya or anywhere else now don't you?
The reason they want to "emulate the West" is because we won all the wars, so now we have all the money.
 
a) In fact, there are many, many people who would have it just that way if they could. Turn over any rock in America and they'll come scurrying out.

b) If they're not doing it here it's none of our business.

c) I condemn most forms of intolerance and violence, religious or not. I'm not sure what you mean by religious failure.

The reason they want to "emulate the West" is because we won all the wars, so now we have all the money.

The reason they want to emulate the west is because it offers better lifestyle, better living conditions and a progressive, egalitarian society. The fact that the West has superior armament comes with superior technological progress, superior advances and those can only come from a better form of society, a more equal one. As Bill Gates said to the Saudis. You will never accomplish your 100% potential by suppressing 50% of the brainpower/workforce. I am paraphrasing ofc.
 
The reason they want to emulate the west is because it offers better lifestyle, better living conditions and a progressive, egalitarian society. The fact that the West has superior armament comes with superior technological progress, superior advances and those can only come from a better form of society, a more equal one. As Bill Gates said to the Saudis. You will never accomplish your 100% potential by suppressing 50% of the brainpower/workforce. I am paraphrasing ofc.
I believe I owe you an apology for an over the top statement on another thread. Sorry. I'm still a crud, but an apologetic one anyway.
 
The reason they want to emulate the west is because it offers better lifestyle, better living conditions and a progressive, egalitarian society. The fact that the West has superior armament comes with superior technological progress, superior advances and those can only come from a better form of society, a more equal one. As Bill Gates said to the Saudis. You will never accomplish your 100% potential by suppressing 50% of the brainpower/workforce. I am paraphrasing ofc.
You really don't understand our history very well, do you? European governments during the 1400-1700's were not in any way "superior" to others as far as their moral values or "a better form of society" went - unless you think monarchs are the answer. Their technology and germs were better but that's it - and that's the wars that were won originally that left Europeans controlling some of the best places on the globe until after WWII when the old European empires broke up, which still left European decedents in power over a good portion of the world & most of it's resources and, without doubt, left us with the biggest military on the planet bar none. There was nothing really "equal" about American society, unless you were a white male, until after WWII. When that was over we were basically the only "empire" left standing and we did everything we could to keep control of it. What do you think the Cold War was all about?

Take off the rose colored glasses, man.
 
Last edited:
I higher propensity for it than what/whom?

than other religous groups in the modern world ...


Then it wasn't violence in the name of religion?

this doesn't even make sense as a reply to what I wrote


A prime example of how leaders use religion as a motivator to push their people into war - and you only have to go back a couple of centuries in the West to find it at work. The Western world tends to use nationalism or philosophical ideals as a motivator for war, now.

The assumption here is that all ideologies are the same, when the obvious answer is they are not. And it only addresses some perceived problem on your end that never existed (the assertion that violence is unique to islam)

It's like me responding to a discussion about the holocaust by citing the ottoman treatment of the armenians




Then you haven't read Indian history at all. Gandhi wasn't the only leader they had and most of the rest were very violent. I haven't read Chinese history too much but I'm pretty sure the events after WWII weren't pretty.

Who said said violence was absent from their histories? I was pretty clearly addressing your assertion non western people could not be expected to act civilized, due to being non western


The Vietnamese had some interesting practices for natives cooperating with the US.

how would that even begin to establish your premise?

We don't treat Muslim prisoners the same that we would Western prisoners. I think that's pretty plain.

1) we don't lock up muslims. We lock up enemy combatants

2) yes they were treated bad. Muslims who are locked up for regular crimes are not treated as such

3) there are likely more muslims outside of the US prison system than in it


I'm sure several thousand people roasted alive in an oven is nothing to some people. Ho Chi Minh was no angel and he wasn't Muslim and one shouldn't leave out the Kmer Rouge, either.

Again, no one suggested violence was absent from any groups history. What was being addressed is your contention that "non western" people can't be expected to act civilized. Citing the Khmer Rouge doesn't establish that.

But it does highlight how an ideology, like modern mainstream interpretations of islam, can drive violence


And those students at UCDavis sitting on the ground sure posed a threat and deserved that face full of pepper spray they got, too

So you're comparing an asshole cop pepper spraying protesters to widespread support for executing people in the islamic world over changing their religion?




We can go on all day about atrocities and horror but that's not really something that turns me on. Suffice it to say it's not all that uncommon and anyone who believes otherwise needs to watch the news more often or at the very least read some recent history.

Again, who claimed violence was unique to islam? What was claimed was that the propensity towards it currently existed at a higher rate, within it. Just like one could say about governments under soviet style communism ...
 
You really don't understand our history very well, do you? European governments during the 1400-1700's were not in any way "superior" to others as far as their moral values or "a better form of society" went - unless you think monarchs are the answer. Their technology and germs were better but that's it - and that's the wars that were won originally that left Europeans controlling some of the best places on the globe until after WWII when the old European empires broke up, which still left European decedents in power over a good portion of the world & most of it's resources and, without doubt, left us with the biggest military on the planet bar none. There was nothing really "equal" about American society, unless you were a white male, until after WWII. When that was over we were basically the only "empire" left standing and we did everything we could to keep control of it. What do you think the Cold War was all about?

Take off the rose colored glasses, man.

Oooh, so that's your angle. Boo hoo, one-sided anti-european rhetoric. I ate and spat out people like you quite a few times already. Here's the short version: you're wrong. and silly. And all you know about that is superficial.

First off, lets address the germs issue. Germs are a relatively new discovery. Despite technological superiority that European enjoyed since the XVth century, they weren't advanced enough to understand microbiology. That stuff needed a few more centuries until it was developed in Europe. Populations grow resilient to diseases they are exposed to. When a new disease travels from one place to the other, and one population has had no chance of developing an imune system, the initial consequences are dire.

Examples:
a) the black plague in Europe. Brought on by the Mongol hordes. Over half of Europe died very fast due to the black plague. Do we hold the Mongols accountable for that genocide? No. Because there is no way of them knowing what diseases could bring with them.
b) the South american diseases that the Spanish brought. Though most pseudo-intellectuals only speak of the Inca, not all of South America was Inca. The Incas were just the top dogs in the South American continent and the only civilization who actually built something worthwhile. Which is why we know of them thanks to European writings. the Incas didn't have a written language. Anyway. The Incas also didn't have: Horses. Metalurgy. the wheel. And a lot of things. but the most important element in this composition is Horses. Since horses carry diseases... which populations who had horses grew immune to (all euroasian and african populations + north america), when the Spanish came with Horses to the South American continent.. disease broke out.

There is a reason why the north american indians didn't get the same diseases as the Incas... when the English and the Dutch came over there. They had horses. And bovines. So they were resilient to those diseases that are transmitted by those animals.
So blame horses. If the Inca had been a bit more... lets say smart. They would have explored their lands north past the "panama" cannal. But they didn't. They were a warring, savage and primitive population whose sole desire was to perform countless blood sacrifices to their brutal gods of women, raid villages and other tribes that weren't part of the Inca Empire and use them as slaves to build whatever remains of their civilization. That's it.

As for the European empires. Colonial empires were established with local support. India is a prime example of this, were, after the British beat and deposed the muslim elite who was ruling over the majority of hindus in the Indian subcontinent (the decline of the Murghal empire, facilitated by the Brits) the new Hindu elite raised to the surface. they made a lucrative deal with the Europeans in which it was mostly a win-win situation... though it is true, the British had the upper hand. Why? because they had the superior firepower. The rule of the Hindu elite depended on them not rebelling. Which they really didn't until the XIXth century when the British outlawed slavery in India and they didn't like that sort of thing... because they wanted to keep slavery. You know, hindu caste system and all that.
 
than other religous groups in the modern world ...
What do you call "modern"? How far back is not modern?


this doesn't even make sense as a reply to what I wrote
Me: "I thought we were talking about religious violence?"

You: "We were actually talking about an attack done in the name of the islamic religion"

Me: "Then it wasn't violence in the name of religion?" --- "It" being "an attack done in the name of the islamic religion".
Sounds like religious violence to me.

The assumption here is that all ideologies are the same, when the obvious answer is they are not. And it only addresses some perceived problem on your end that never existed (the assertion that violence is unique to islam)

It's like me responding to a discussion about the holocaust by citing the ottoman treatment of the armenians
The way people talk it's like it has never occurred in the past and will never occur again in the future. Violence, like it or not, is part of humanity.


Who said said violence was absent from their histories? I was pretty clearly addressing your assertion non western people could not be expected to act civilized, due to being non western
Exactly how far back do you think is acceptable in this discussion? You think WWII isn't acceptable? People are still alive who fought and killed in that war. There are even a small few who vaguely remember WWI, or at least it's aftermath. Where do you draw the line at "modern" since you seem to believe all I'm talking about is ancient history?

My assertion was that we couldn't just them by our (current) Western Christian standards. I'm not sure we're all that civilized considering what we've been doing for the past decade.


how would that even begin to establish your premise?
It's another non-Western culture that has engaged in what I would call "modern" violence and atrocities.


1) we don't lock up muslims. We lock up enemy combatants
Tell that to the ones we finally figured out weren't combatants of any kind.

2) yes they were treated bad. Muslims who are locked up for regular crimes are not treated as such
Treated bad? :lamo

3) there are likely more muslims outside of the US prison system than in it
Well, I would hope we don't have half the world population of Muslims locked up somewhere.


Again, no one suggested violence was absent from any groups history. What was being addressed is your contention that "non western" people can't be expected to act civilized. Citing the Khmer Rouge doesn't establish that.

But it does highlight how an ideology, like modern mainstream interpretations of islam, can drive violence
It doesn't? Are you saying the actions of the Khmer Rouge were civil? How about Ho Chi Minh?


So you're comparing an asshole cop pepper spraying protesters to widespread support for executing people in the islamic world over changing their religion?
I see you failed to mention the four dead college students. Nice that you don't want to remember them.

It's their country. Who are we to tell them what to do? If their people want to revolt that's up to them but I haven't seen any signs of that happening. If they decide to bring that attitude over here you'll have something to be up in arms about --- and I'll be right next to you.


Again, who claimed violence was unique to islam? What was claimed was that the propensity towards it currently existed at a higher rate, within it. Just like one could say about governments under soviet style communism ...
I'd say that's because the Islamic countries who want us out of the Mideast have few other choices than to use religion as a tool of warfare since they can't stand up directly against our military. I have no reason to believe the religion itself is inherently violent any more than Christianity, which is where I believe this whole roller coaster started.
 
Last edited:
What do you call "modern"? How far back is not modern?

well, it would need to be something reasonable, like not 800 years ago. But preferable with a focus on the present, since the scenario we are discussing is about "present" circumstances

But to answer the obvious, again, no one is claiming violence is unique to islam.

Sounds like religious violence to me.

Well, that would underline a likely cognitive issue that is preventing you from distinguishing between a specific incident and a generalized trend


The way people talk it's like it has never occurred in the past and will never occur again in the future. Violence, like it or not, is part of humanity.

No, people are quite open about the fact that violence has occured within other religions, ideologies, and various cultural and political groups. In fact there are these things called history books that are full of such examples.

But of course, it's easier to argue against a position that no one staked out


Exactly how far back do you think is acceptable in this discussion?

Why would that be even relevent to the claim that "non western people can't act civilized"? All I need to do is point to the fact that they can work in a professional setting and not attack each other.

It's another non-Western culture that has engaged in what I would call "modern" violence and atrocities.

but the claim was never "violence and atrocities" are absent from any culture. The claim was that "non western" people can't act civilized, and citing an extreme incident, that in no way serves as a norm, does not support such an argument.


Tell that to the ones we finally figured out weren't combatants of any kind.

We locked them up because we thought they were enemy combatants. The poor application of such a policy doesn't disprove that


It doesn't? Are you saying the actions of the Khmer Rouge were civil?

this is what I wrote:
"Again, no one suggested violence was absent from any groups history. What was being addressed is your contention that "non western" people can't be expected to act civilized. Citing the Khmer Rouge doesn't establish that.

But it does highlight how an ideology, like modern mainstream interpretations of islam, can drive violence"

clearly calling a group violent isn't claiming they acted in a civilized manner. And what I was clearly addressing was the idea that policy under the KR establishes some reliable baseline for "non-western" people

I see you failed to mention the four dead college students. Nice.

4 dead collage students? I am not aware of any deaths in the UC davis incident.


It's their country. Who are we to tell them what to do? If their people want to revolt that's up to them but I haven't seen any signs of that happening.

Right, it's their country and I never advocated for forcing anyone to do anything. But the problem is that these issues do not stay within their borders, because how the ideology rejects nationalism and has no qualms about hitting soft targets


I'd say that's because the Islamic countries who want us out of the Mideast have few other choices than to use religion as a tool of warfare since they can't stand up directly against our military. I have no reason to believe the religion itself is inherently violent any more than Christianity, which is where I believe this whole roller coaster started.

these violent movements are not solely concerned with US and Israeli policy. Towards the ME. In fact, their biggest component is probably their views on internal politics and the policies they want to force on their country men. Not to mention, they try to dictate how westerners can act and express themselves, by doing things like rioting and murdering random people over a danish guy drawing a picture

Second, you would be ignoring the doctrinal and historical differences between Islam and Christianity (I would suggest "war and peace in the law of islam" by Majid Khadduri).
 
Well, thats debatable considering they were "inspired" by Al Qaeda's "Inspire" website.

Inspired or not, it wasn't a larger plot by Al Qaeda, it was individual people acting on their own.
 
Oooh, so that's your angle. Boo hoo, one-sided anti-european rhetoric. I ate and spat out people like you quite a few times already. Here's the short version: you're wrong. and silly. And all you know about that is superficial.

First off, lets address the germs issue. Germs are a relatively new discovery. Despite technological superiority that European enjoyed since the XVth century, they weren't advanced enough to understand microbiology. That stuff needed a few more centuries until it was developed in Europe. Populations grow resilient to diseases they are exposed to. When a new disease travels from one place to the other, and one population has had no chance of developing an imune system, the initial consequences are dire.

Examples:
a) the black plague in Europe. Brought on by the Mongol hordes. Over half of Europe died very fast due to the black plague. Do we hold the Mongols accountable for that genocide? No. Because there is no way of them knowing what diseases could bring with them.
b) the South american diseases that the Spanish brought. Though most pseudo-intellectuals only speak of the Inca, not all of South America was Inca. The Incas were just the top dogs in the South American continent and the only civilization who actually built something worthwhile. Which is why we know of them thanks to European writings. the Incas didn't have a written language. Anyway. The Incas also didn't have: Horses. Metalurgy. the wheel. And a lot of things. but the most important element in this composition is Horses. Since horses carry diseases... which populations who had horses grew immune to (all euroasian and african populations + north america), when the Spanish came with Horses to the South American continent.. disease broke out.

There is a reason why the north american indians didn't get the same diseases as the Incas... when the English and the Dutch came over there. They had horses. And bovines. So they were resilient to those diseases that are transmitted by those animals.
So blame horses. If the Inca had been a bit more... lets say smart. They would have explored their lands north past the "panama" cannal. But they didn't. They were a warring, savage and primitive population whose sole desire was to perform countless blood sacrifices to their brutal gods of women, raid villages and other tribes that weren't part of the Inca Empire and use them as slaves to build whatever remains of their civilization. That's it.
Ignorance on your part. Did I ever mention they intentionally used germ warfare? No. Did it help them conquer new territories? Yes. You fail.


As for the European empires. Colonial empires were established with local support. India is a prime example of this, were, after the British beat and deposed the muslim elite who was ruling over the majority of hindus in the Indian subcontinent (the decline of the Murghal empire, facilitated by the Brits) the new Hindu elite raised to the surface. they made a lucrative deal with the Europeans in which it was mostly a win-win situation... though it is true, the British had the upper hand. Why? because they had the superior firepower. The rule of the Hindu elite depended on them not rebelling. Which they really didn't until the XIXth century when the British outlawed slavery in India and they didn't like that sort of thing... because they wanted to keep slavery. You know, hindu caste system and all that.
So by your own admission the British invaded and established a new order with them (the British) on top. Not uncommon in any imperialist mission. You fail, again.


BTW - It was never meant to be anti-European, just realistic (and that you interpreted it is anti-European says more about you than my post did about me). I'm of European decent so I'm pretty well off compared to most in the world - but where we are now has little to do with any "noble society".
 
Last edited:
Ignorance on your part. Did I ever mention they intentionally used germ warfare? No. Did it help them conquer new territories? Yes. You fail.


So by your own admission the British invaded and established a new order with them (the British) on top. Not uncommon in any imperialist mission. You fail, again.

Only a man with a superficial mind can read all that, and provide so little rebbutle. It would be laughable, if it weren't so sad. Not to mention the incredibly false understanding of what I actually described. But it is to be expected though. what I described was a rather complex environment. Precarious minds are not able to grasp such concepts. it is known.
 
Only a man with a superficial mind can read all that, and provide so little rebbutle. It would be laughable, if it weren't so sad. Not to mention the incredibly false understanding of what I actually described. But it is to be expected though. what I described was a rather complex environment. Precarious minds are not able to grasp such concepts. it is known.
Your post got what it deserved since you obviously approached it with bias and false assumptions. This one will get the same treatment, to wit ...

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Your post got what it deserved since you obviously approached it with bias and false assumptions. This one will get the same treatment, to wit ...

:lamo :lamo :lamo

You mean it got a clear display of the limits of your intellectual capacities? Yep... you may laugh about it, but it is no laughing matter.
There are cases where people like.. well, you, forgot to breathe at times and needed help reminding them about it.
 
BTW - It was never meant to be anti-European, just realistic (and that you interpreted it is anti-European says more about you than my post did about me). I'm of European decent so I'm pretty well off compared to most in the world - but where we are now has little to do with any "noble society".

actually where we are now seems heavily dependent on western liberal values. Like democracy, secularism, human rights, etc
 
Inspired or not, it wasn't a larger plot by Al Qaeda, it was individual people acting on their own.
Inspiring individuals in America to kill Americans is part of Al Qaeda's larger plot.
 
actually where we are now seems heavily dependent on western liberal values. Like democracy, secularism, human rights, etc
And how do you suppose it is that we have the ability to embrace such ideas? Do you think those ideas didn't exist prior to us arriving on the scene? Look around you. What real, viable threats do we have that aren't internal?


PS
True secularism is relatively new to the "modern age" even here. Why do you think we're going through the SSM issue? And don't even bother with "human rights". Ask the non-white and females where their "rights" were a 50 years ago. They sure didn't meet the same standard of white males and in some cases still don't.
 
Last edited:
You mean it got a clear display of the limits of your intellectual capacities? Yep... you may laugh about it, but it is no laughing matter.
There are cases where people like.. well, you, forgot to breathe at times and needed help reminding them about it.
Your first two sentences set up your case. There was no reason to read much further if that's what you were trying to prove. If you'd care to try again without the false assumptions I'm willing to read your posts.
 
One of the brothers been reading the Al-Qaeda publication Inspire.

Why?

Why did he become radicalized? What views ? What justifications?

They are always the same. US foreign policy. It's responsible for all the terrorist attacks on this country. 9/11, boston, etc. Story is always the same. Guy got tired of reading about another 30 here another 50 there another 200 Muslim children there got killed today and just decided to do something about it. He probably couldn't reconcile two different ideas

"I am Muslim."
"I watch Muslim women and children die and I do nothing."
"I am a good Muslim."
Over time these thoughts would have taken their toll on him, eventually leading to cognitive dissonance. It's only natural that he would find religious confirmation for what he's already decided is a correct course of action. So this is how people get radicalized. They realize that our treatment of Muslims around the world is morally wrong and some of them desire to stand up and do something about it. And that's basically how it happens. This can all be traced back to our foreign policy.
 
Why?

Why did he become radicalized? What views ? What justifications?

They are always the same. US foreign policy. It's responsible for all the terrorist attacks on this country. 9/11, boston, etc. Story is always the same. Guy got tired of reading about another 30 here another 50 there another 200 Muslim children there got killed today and just decided to do something about it. He probably couldn't reconcile two different ideas

"I am Muslim."
"I watch Muslim women and children die and I do nothing."
"I am a good Muslim."
Over time these thoughts would have taken their toll on him, eventually leading to cognitive dissonance. It's only natural that he would find religious confirmation for what he's already decided is a correct course of action. So this is how people get radicalized. They realize that our treatment of Muslims around the world is morally wrong and some of them desire to stand up and do something about it. And that's basically how it happens. This can all be traced back to our foreign policy.

Foreign policy aside the use of internet as a media for terror purposes is cheap, accessible, anonymous and largely unregulated. Singapore has not been spared. Even before 9/11 terrorists has already begun to exploit the internet for their evil purposes including fund raising, training and planning their activities.
 
Foreign policy aside the use of internet as a media for terror purposes is cheap, accessible, anonymous and largely unregulated. Singapore has not been spared. Even before 9/11 terrorists has already begun to exploit the internet for their evil purposes including fund raising, training and planning their activities.

Yes but the reason people desire to kill Americans is because of our murderous foreign policy.
 
Yes but the reason people desire to kill Americans is because of our murderous foreign policy.

these groups are hardly focused on american policy. Their main concerns tend to be the political organization of islamic majority states.
 
these groups are hardly focused on american policy. Their main concerns tend to be the political organization of islamic majority states.

Nope, US foreign policy is always what motivates and galvanizes terrorist into action against the US.
 
Nope, US foreign policy is always what motivates and galvanizes terrorist into action against the US.

So tell me, how is US foreign policy motivating terrorists? Were there no terror attacks before the US engaged in Iraq? What facts are basing your comment on? Or is that just what you think?

And why do you think terrorists also attack people from every other country in the world as well? It's not just Americans you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Hmmm. I guess ALL other countries in the world are to blame for terrorism, except for the ones who actually commit the terrorist acts.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom