• 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!

Dozens held after Islamists attack Algerian gas field!!!![W:280]

Im sorry, I dont subscribe to the idea that conventional warfare is the same as terrorist warfare---morally or subjectively. The difference between bombing a bus from the air and blowing it up with a suicide bomber is the airman isnt trying to bomb the bus because its a civilian transport and considered offlimits; the terrorist actively seeks to kill as many innocents as possible to make his point as horrific as possible.

Your 500k to 1mill claim is badly staged propaganda because you cannot substantiate or corroborate that number; no one can in an active warfront.

Bottom line, terrorism is an accepted course of political action in Islamic culture and condemnation is weak and has no teeth.

When you decide to drop a certain number of bombs you know that you will probably destroy more school buses of children than any terrorist could. That is when conventional warfare becomes the same as terrorism in effect, if not motivation. The motivation of killer is not very significant to his victim. In the case of every war since WWII, the West has had no argument that our bombings would save lives overall*, because we never faced a genuine sufficiently significant threat to our nation's safety.

*possible exception of Bosnia
 
Last edited:
When you decide to drop a certain number of bombs you know that you will probably destroy more school buses of children than any terrorist could. That is when conventional warfare becomes the same as terrorism in effect, if not motivation. The motivation of killer is not very significant to his victim. In the case of every war since WWII, the West has had no argument that our bombings would save lives overall*, because we never faced a genuine sufficiently significant threat to our nation's safety.

*possible exception of Bosnia

Your statements ignore the cold, hard truth that bombing campaigns in modern warfare are restrictive and not a free for all. The kind of bombing that was executed on Dresden, Berlin, and London that flattened block after block just are not done anymore. Your response is an emotional one, not a rational one.
 
Even accepting the 121,000 Iraqi death figure, the Christian west is still ahead in the body count.

I am not calling for sympathy for terrorists and/or Islamists, I am calling for a better understanding of the phenomena by knowing recent history, most of which is not taught in our schools and is rarely in the news papers. If we allow propaganda to portray our enemies as simply crazed religious fanatics then we will fail to deal with the problems of interfacing with them effectively.

Consider the info below re. Algeria. In my view it is impossible to understand the reality of the current situation without consideration of this history:

The worst of the bloodshed began in 1945, when French troops responded brutally to a spate of uprisings, killing tens of thousands. The official war for Algerian independence didn’t begin until 1954, and hundreds of thousands (the exact figure is widely disputed) lost their lives during the following six years of combat. About 100 Algerians were also killed in Paris in 1961.

“...He stopped short of an official apology, which Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika has been demanding since 2003. But at this point, the people of Algeria seem willing to let it slide.

More than half a century has passed since a series of bloody atrocities took place during the years leading up to Algerian independence in 1962. Until that time, the country was a department of France, but Muslim Arabs and Berbers there were largely disenfranchised. Even when they gained the right to vote in 1944, unjust district mapping practices made sure they would remain unable to exercise their fair share of political power

For 132 years, what Algeria was subjected to was profoundly brutal and unfair,” said Hollande in a speech to Algerian lawmakers on Wednesday......"
December 20 2012
Economy Trumps Apology As France Admits To Algerian Massacres

Even accepting 121,000, you're using a number that includes a lot killed by terrorists and assigning it to America.

And I'm sorry, you are playing terrorist apologist. You're brining up grievances that Algerians may feel and assigning it to a group of terrorists, not supported by Algerians, who kill mostly Algerians.

Guess what, the terrorists in Iraq kill mostly Iraqi's, the terrorists in Afghanistan kill mostly Afghanis. You betray the powerless who actually suffer the brunt of terrorism by trying to rationalise it. There may be a group of people in the Arab world who deserve sympathy due to the effects of Western misadventures, but its not the people murdering their own.
 
Even accepting 121,000, you're using a number that includes a lot killed by terrorists and assigning it to America.

And I'm sorry, you are playing terrorist apologist. You're brining up grievances that Algerians may feel and assigning it to a group of terrorists, not supported by Algerians, who kill mostly Algerians.

Guess what, the terrorists in Iraq kill mostly Iraqi's, the terrorists in Afghanistan kill mostly Afghanis. You betray the powerless who actually suffer the brunt of terrorism by trying to rationalise it. There may be a group of people in the Arab world who deserve sympathy due to the effects of Western misadventures, but its not the people murdering their own.

I am not apologizing for terrorists and I made that clear. My point is not about sympathy or justification, it is about understanding the motivation of the terrorists and those who support them. If we believe our own propaganda that they are nothing but crazed religious fanatics who hate us for our freedom, then we will not succeed at ending terrorism and may make it worse by creating more enemies through our violent actions. Our attack on Afghanistan is a good example of that. We may have reduced the power of Al Qeda, but we have bred a lot of hatred in both Pakistan and Afghanistan due to our intervention that will likely be a problem in the future.
 
I am not apologizing for terrorists and I made that clear. .

If you were not an apologist, you would not be indulging in all these dishonest moral equivalencies and specious rationalizations -- themes originating in the rhetorec of the Islamist terrorists, themselves.

If you weren't supporting every conceivable terrorist talking point as thoroughly as you are, I doubt whether anybody would consider you an apologist.
 
If you were not an apologist, you would not be indulging in all these dishonest moral equivalencies and specious rationalizations -- themes originating in the rhetorec of the Islamist terrorists, themselves.

If you weren't supporting every conceivable terrorist talking point as thoroughly as you are, I doubt whether anybody would consider you an apologist.

I advocate non-violent change in the manner of MLK Jr. and Ghandi. I believe in the benefits of genuine representational democracy. I strongly support freedom of religion and religion-state separation. I consistently oppose all oppression of women, sexual minorities, and other minorities through my support of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the ACLU. I advocate for fair trials for all defendents. I support the right to individual freedom and a right to privacy for consensual activities among consenting adults.

Virtually all of my positions contradict those of the Taliban and other Islamist organizations or any movement that primarily uses violence to make social change. I have no problem with prosecuting all criminals who commit violent acts, no matter their reasons.

Calling me a terrorist sympathizer is merely a way to try to silence or ignore me because the historic facts I brought up make you uncomfortable because they challenge your image of a righteous and innocent USA and Europe. My goal is to challenge the incorrect belief that the past and present policies and actions of the West have no impact on the distrust and hostility many Muslims have towards western intervention in the Muslim world. I doubt many people with a reasonable amount of knowledge about the West's actual behavior in the middle east and elsewhere would accept your position, which I believe is based on lack of historic knowledge.

For example do you know about this?
"During World War II, Iran was once again subject to British and Russian occupation.

In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation, supported by the Shah, was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government of another sovereign state.[85]
The Shah visits the Kharg petrochemical complex, 1970

After Operation Ajax, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi favoured American and British oil interests and his rule became increasingly autocratic."
Wikiepedia
 
Last edited:
I advocate non-violent change in the manner of MLK Jr. and Ghandi. I believe in the benefits of genuine representational democracy. I strongly support freedom of religion and religion-state separation. I consistently oppose all oppression of women, sexual minorities, and other minorities through my support of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the ACLU. I advocate for fair trials for all defendents. I support the right to individual freedom and a right to privacy for consensual activities among consenting adults.

Virtually all of my positions contradict those of the Taliban and other Islamist organizations or any movement that primarily uses violence to make social change. I have no problem with prosecuting all criminals who commit violent acts, no matter their reasons.

Calling me a terrorist sympathizer is merely a way to try to silence or ignore me because the historic facts I brought up make you uncomfortable because they challenge your image of a righteous and innocent USA and Europe. My goal is to challenge the incorrect belief that the past and present policies and actions of the West have no impact on the distrust and hostility many Muslims have towards western intervention in the Muslim world. I doubt many people with a reasonable amount of knowledge about the West's actual behavior in the middle east and elsewhere would accept your position, which I believe is based on lack of historic knowledge.

For example do you know about this?
"During World War II, Iran was once again subject to British and Russian occupation.

In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation, supported by the Shah, was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government of another sovereign state.[85]
The Shah visits the Kharg petrochemical complex, 1970

After Operation Ajax, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi favoured American and British oil interests and his rule became increasingly autocratic."
Wikiepedia


You are certainly free to prattle on with a bunch of faux outrage, but what you have been representing and what you claim to represent are separated by such an enormous gulf that they cannot possibly both be true.
 
Back
Top Bottom