- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
-
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!
"Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?
- Thread starter Agnapostate
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
lol at the time Pol Pot was systematically slaughtering the Cambodian peasantry, a claim which Chomsky also denied at the time because he supported the Khmer Rouge and offered them his apologetics. He's a sick **** genocide denier.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,923
- Reaction score
- 1,738
- Location
- Staffs, England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Noboddys dennied Pol Pot systematically slaughtered people. Again you miss the point. I expect deliberatly.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Chomsky did.
No you missed the point, Chomsky 1) asserted that at most that the Khmer Rouge killed 1,000 people, 2) actually credits the Khmer Rouge with saving lives, and 3) said that he elicited a positive response from the very peasantry which he was systematically slaughtering.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,588
- Reaction score
- 468
- Location
- Western Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The only thing American knows these days is to feed their addictions and make warfare. We need to feed people drugs to achieve anything, I mean actual drugs, since all other sources of addiction is already in use. We can legalize it and use it as reward for ingenuity, perhaps then America and Europe could be innovative in other ways than stealing and managing computer digits, paper, nickel and copper.
America, like Europe, but to a bigger degree is a huge intellectual decline.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,341
- Reaction score
- 428
- Location
- All over
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I think we need to be mindful of what it is that Islamic Extremists are trying to achieve, at least those radicalized enough to pick up arms and suicide vests in an attempt to reach unachievable ends.
For the most part, these men, now mostly devoid of any ties to any state, want to set up an Islamic Caliphate across all Muslium lands. Here is the crux of the issue, the Islamic world is vast and incredibly diverse. I am not sure that Indonesians want to be linked to Morocco via Saudi Arabia. I am fairly certain that Iran and Iraq are not about to throw aside centuries of animosity and embrace each other to restor a dictatorial Caliphate that would impose a harsh brand of Islam that would lock the Islamic world into their own dark ages.
US foriegn policy, which is minful of the much greater desire by the Islamic World to join the rest of the world, to connect into the global economic community, and lauching stablization efforts for the legitimate governments in the region is not at fault or even the cause of the terrorists inability to impose a Caliphate upon the entire Islamic World. What they are asking for is not feasible without horrific violence and bloodshed. Any country anywhere who says, "We disagree" will be put into the cross hairs of these men. They are addicted to a dream with no connection to pragmatism or practicality. They are zealots who have adandoned every facet of morality to kill for a purpose that cannot be achieved.
What does US foreign policy have to do with that?
Are there problems with US foreign policy in the region? You bet. There will always be things we can do better.
Even if we fixed every last problem, would Islamic radical terrorism disappear? No. In fact, even if we left the region entirely, it would be presented as a great victory in Allah's very preverted name. All that would happen would be more people killed as they realized that the, SURPRISE, there is another obstacle to the Caliphate. We must not abandon the majority of Islam because there are those of ill intent who would prevert moderation in the name of Islam and use violence to achieve their ends. This is about replaced governments, in some cases very bad governments, with a even worse form of government. There is a reason the Caliphate fell.
Osama Bin Laden and those around him are not seeking to redress a specific grievence, they are looking for glory in rivers of blood.
The only way to handle those who have adopted this mentality is to kill or capture them. They must be rigorously isolated from the innocent they will prey upon or victimize, their insane narrative confonted, and hunted with the utmost ferocity. There is no placating this foe.
For the most part, these men, now mostly devoid of any ties to any state, want to set up an Islamic Caliphate across all Muslium lands. Here is the crux of the issue, the Islamic world is vast and incredibly diverse. I am not sure that Indonesians want to be linked to Morocco via Saudi Arabia. I am fairly certain that Iran and Iraq are not about to throw aside centuries of animosity and embrace each other to restor a dictatorial Caliphate that would impose a harsh brand of Islam that would lock the Islamic world into their own dark ages.
US foriegn policy, which is minful of the much greater desire by the Islamic World to join the rest of the world, to connect into the global economic community, and lauching stablization efforts for the legitimate governments in the region is not at fault or even the cause of the terrorists inability to impose a Caliphate upon the entire Islamic World. What they are asking for is not feasible without horrific violence and bloodshed. Any country anywhere who says, "We disagree" will be put into the cross hairs of these men. They are addicted to a dream with no connection to pragmatism or practicality. They are zealots who have adandoned every facet of morality to kill for a purpose that cannot be achieved.
What does US foreign policy have to do with that?
Are there problems with US foreign policy in the region? You bet. There will always be things we can do better.
Even if we fixed every last problem, would Islamic radical terrorism disappear? No. In fact, even if we left the region entirely, it would be presented as a great victory in Allah's very preverted name. All that would happen would be more people killed as they realized that the, SURPRISE, there is another obstacle to the Caliphate. We must not abandon the majority of Islam because there are those of ill intent who would prevert moderation in the name of Islam and use violence to achieve their ends. This is about replaced governments, in some cases very bad governments, with a even worse form of government. There is a reason the Caliphate fell.
Osama Bin Laden and those around him are not seeking to redress a specific grievence, they are looking for glory in rivers of blood.
The only way to handle those who have adopted this mentality is to kill or capture them. They must be rigorously isolated from the innocent they will prey upon or victimize, their insane narrative confonted, and hunted with the utmost ferocity. There is no placating this foe.
Last edited: